AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE
INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS AND
THE BARRIERS TO ITS USE
A Case Study of Seven Teachers in Three Schools
in Ordu; Turkey
by
Ercan TOMAKIN
This thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the School of Education and Professional Development,
University of East Anglia
Norwich
June 2001
© Ercan Tomakin. This copy of the thesis has been supplied on the condition that anyone who
consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that no
quotation from the thesis, nor any information derived therefrom, may be published without the
author’s prior, written consent. [etomakin@hotmail.com].

I hereby declare that
this thesis has not been
submitted, either in the same
or different form, to this or
any other university for a degree.

D E D I C A T I O N
To my wife, Filiz,
For her patience and help during my study.
To my beloved son, Omer Muhtar,
For being a centre of joke and inspiration during this study.
And to others.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to my supervisors; Dr. Rob
McBride and Prof. Maggie MacLure. Without their teaching, guidance and help, it
would have been impossible to complete this study. I wish to express my special thanks
to Dr. McBride for his continuous support and encouragement. His critical questioning
of ‘issues’ and professional feedback after reading each chapter have been a real
motivation for me. I will always cherish his tolerance, patience for my being late, and
interruptions during supervisions.
On the same note, I owe many special thanks to Prof. Maggie MacLure for her special
help and guidance while doing corrections to bring this study to a successful end. Her
availability, without being subject to time constraint, particularly is a great cushion for
research students, which I luckily obtained.
Many thanks are due to Prof. Nigel Norris, Prof. Maggie MacLure and Dr. Saville
Kushner for running methodology and data analysis seminars, during which time, I had
the opportunity to benefit from their experience and critical questioning. Much of my
understanding of qualitative research was and developed during these seminars.
On the same note, thanks to the late Lawrence Stenhouse whose idea of ‘teachers as
researchers’ has been an effective concern in my career, to Prof. John Elliott for
polishing the idea of educational action research and for giving me appointments and
advice before I implemented the second cycle of my research; to Prof. Barry MacDonald
for his priceless view of ‘democratic evaluation’ which greatly affected my
understanding of the examination system in Turkey.
I should like to thank the Turkish government and Yuzuncu Yil Univeristy for providing
me with the opportunity of undertaking postgraduate study, without which I would never
have been able to accomplish my MA and Ph.D. studies in the UK.
I would like to thank the Norwich City Council and University of East Anglia for their
generous help during this study.
I would also like to thank J. S. Stuart for permission to quote from her Ph.D. thesis.
Many thanks my friends, Paul, Puva, Chow, Lawrence, Musonda, Teresa, Sofi, Tan and
others for sharing their ideas with me, to Terresa, Shan and Fiona for doing proof
reading and to Cemalettin for typesetting the thesis.
And last, but not the least, my parents, my brothers and sister, thank you very much for
being so supportive and considerate. Thank you for your prayers and best wishes.

Contents i
CONTENTS
A GLOSSORY OF TERMS ..........................................................................................VI
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................VIII
LIST OF PICTURES..................................................................................................VIII
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................IX
PART ONE....................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION .....................................................1
1.1.STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ..........................................................................1
1.2. GENERAL RATIONALE.......................................................................................2
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ..............................................................................3
1.4. FURTHER RATIONALE: THE IMPROVEMENT OF LANGUAGE TEACHING.............5
1.5. EVALUATING THE STUDY ..................................................................................6
1.6. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ..............................................................................7
CHAPTER TWO: MY AUTOBIOGRAPHY ............................................................11
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................11
2.1. MY AUTOBIOGRAPHY......................................................................................11
2.1.1. A brief Life History..................................................................................11
2.1.2. Some Reflections about Language Learning...........................................12
2.1.3. Some Reflections about Teacher Training..............................................15
2.1.4. Some Reflections about Language Teaching ..........................................16
2.2. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................19
PART TWO.................................................................................................................20
CHAPTER THREE: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH CONTEXT........21
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................21
3.1. THE STATE (TURKEY) .....................................................................................21
3.1.1. The Political System...............................................................................21
3.2. NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OF TURKEY.............................................23
3.2.1. Background of the National Educational System....................................23
3.2.2. Present Structure of National Educational System................................23
3.2.3. National Curriculum (NC) .....................................................................25
3.2.4. Present Structure of Schools..................................................................27
3.2.5. The Higher education Council (HEC) ...................................................29
3.2.6. Initial Teacher Training and Education (I T T).....................................31
3.2.7. In-service Education and Training (INSET)..........................................33
3.2.8. A Brief Review of the Terms Used in Educational Activities.................37
3.3. ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TURKEY ................................................42
3.3.1. Background to Foreign Language Teaching .........................................42

Contents ii
3.3.2. The Use of English in Turkey.................................................................44
3.3.3. The Place of English in Schools in Turkey.............................................45
3.3.4. The Topics Taught in Schools................................................................47
3.3.5. How Language Courses are Taught .......................................................49
3.3.6. How the English Lessons are Assessed:..................................................50
3.3.7. Professional and Non-professional Language Teachers.......................53
3.4. REMEDIAL SUGGESTIONS TO SOLVE EDUCATIONAL PROBLEMS.................55
3.4.1. Teachers’ and Head teachers’ Suggestions to Improve Education &
Training.............................................................................................................56
3.4.2. Teachers’ and Head Teachers’ Suggestions to Improve School
Management......................................................................................................57
3.5. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................58
CHAPTER FOUR: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF AR LITERATURE ....................60
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................60
4.1. CONTEST OF TERMS ........................................................................................60
4.2. ORIGIN OF ACTION RESEARCH .......................................................................63
4.3. DEFINITION OF ACTION RESEARCH................................................................66
4.4. OBJECTIVES OF AR STUDIES ..........................................................................71
4.4.1. The Views in the 1st
Group......................................................................71
4.4.2. The Views in the 2nd
Group.....................................................................72
4.5. THE STARTING POINT OF AR.........................................................................74
4.6. TYPES OF ACTION RESEARCH.........................................................................77
4.6.1. Diagnostic AR .........................................................................................77
4.6.2. Participant AR.........................................................................................77
4.6.3. Empirical AR...........................................................................................78
4.6.4. Experimental AR .....................................................................................78
4.6.5. Other Types of AR ...................................................................................78
4.6.6. Technical AR ...........................................................................................79
4.6.7. Practical AR ............................................................................................79
4.6.8. Emancipatory AR ....................................................................................79
4.6.9. The CRASP Model...................................................................................80
4.6.10. Generative AR .......................................................................................80
4.7. MODELS OF ACTION RESEARCH.....................................................................81
4.8. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ............................................................................83
4.9. EVALUATION OF ACTION RESEARCH STUDIES ..............................................84
4.9.1. What is/are evaluated in AR studies?......................................................84
4.9.2. How is the evaluation of AR studies reported/represented?...................87
4.10. CRITIQUE OF ACTION RESEARCH ................................................................89
4.11. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................91
CHAPTER FIVE: ACTION RESEARCH AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TEACHING ...........................................................................................................97
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................97
5.1. RATIONALE......................................................................................................97
5.2. A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS AR STUDIES ON LANGUAGE TEACHING................98
5.2.1. AR Studies from the BEI........................................................................100
5.2.2. AR Studies from the Journal of Educational Action Research..............100
5.2.3. The Other AR Studies............................................................................101

Contents iii
5.3. A REVIEW OF KEY TERMS IN LANGUAGE STUDIES ....................................101
5.3.1. Language Teaching/Language Learning..............................................101
5.3.2. Language Learning/Language Acquisition...........................................105
5.3.3. First Language Acquisition (FLA) or (L1)............................................106
5.3.4. Second Language (L2) or Foreign Language (FL)...............................106
5.3.5. How Children Acquire/Learn Language...............................................107
5.4. A REVIEW OF MAJOR APPROACHES AND METHODS ...................................110
5.4.1. The Structural Approach.......................................................................111
5.4.2. The Functional Approach .....................................................................112
5.4.3. The Interactional Approach..................................................................113
5.5. COMMON POINTS BETWEEN AR AND LANGUAGE TEACHING THEORIES ...114
5.5.1. AR-based language teaching places values on individual learners......116
5.5.2. AR-based language teaching addresses learners’ needs......................118
5.5.3. AR-based language teaching uses qualitative approaches for
development.....................................................................................................119
5.5.4. AR-based language teaching does not rely upon prescriptive rules.....120
5.5.5. AR-based language teaching always consults learners.......................121
5.5.6. AR-based language teaching is a democratic approach.......................121
5.6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................122
PART THREE..........................................................................................................124
CHAPTER SIX: INTRODUCTION OF ACTION MODELS AND ACTION
CYCLES...............................................................................................................125
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................125
6.1. STARTING POINT OF ACTION CYCLES ..........................................................125
6.2. ACTION CYCLES AND ACTION PLANS (1997) ...............................................127
6.3. ACTION CYCLES AND ACTION PLANS (1998) ...............................................142
6.4. ACTION CYCLES AND ACTION PLANS IN 1999..............................................153
6.5. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES WHICH EMERGED FROM THE FIELD STUDIES...........162
6.6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................168
CHAPTER SEVEN: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY................................169
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................169
7.1. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RATIONALE ..................................................169
7.2. NATURE OF THIS STUDY................................................................................170
7.3. GAINING ACCESS ...........................................................................................171
7.4. SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................173
7.5. ETHICAL PROCEDURES OF THIS STUDY .......................................................177
7.6. DATA COLLECTION METHODS......................................................................180
7.6.1. Diary .....................................................................................................181
7.6.2. Interviews..............................................................................................183
7.6.3. Observations .........................................................................................185
7.6.4. Audio-tape Recording ...........................................................................187
7.6.5. Questionnaires ......................................................................................188
7.6.6. Documents.............................................................................................189
7.7. MAKING SENSE OF THE COLLECTED DATA..................................................190
7.7.1. Among the options; how I analysed the collected data........................192

Contents iv
7.7.2. How I reported or represented the analysis of data..............................194
7.7.3. Negotiation of Analysis and Reports.....................................................198
7.7.4. The Cases in Theory..............................................................................200
7.7.5. Defining the Boundary of a Case..........................................................203
7.7.6. The Cases in This Study ........................................................................205
7.8. RELIABILITY..................................................................................................207
7.9. VALIDITY .......................................................................................................208
7.10. GENERALISATION OF CASE STUDIES ..........................................................209
7.11. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................211
PART FOUR.............................................................................................................212
CHAPTER EIGHT: ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ARISING FROM THE
CLASSROOM STUDY ......................................................................................213
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................213
8.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITUATION BEFORE THE AR STUDY .........................214
8.1.1. General Introduction to School Contexts.............................................215
8.1.2. A ‘Foreword’ about the Language Teaching Situations before the AR
Study................................................................................................................217
8.1.3. Identification of Common Patterns of Classroom Observations ..........217
8.1.4. Further Classification of Language Teaching Patterns........................222
8.1.5. The Frequency of Patterns....................................................................224
8.1.6. Evidence From Written Notes...............................................................225
8.1.7. Other Clues about Language Teaching Situations before my SOAR....227
8.1.8. General Findings of the Classroom Observations before the Study....228
8.2. MORE REFLECTIONS FROM LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS DURING THE AR
STUDY....................................................................................................................229
8.2.1. Some Extracts as Evidence of Practice in Language Classrooms........229
8.2.2. Summary of Observations.....................................................................233
8.2.3. Teachers’ Views of ‘Time’ When Using Action Plans..........................233
8.3. PARTICIPANT TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTION RESEARCH...........................234
Introduction.....................................................................................................234
8.3.1. Teachers’ Perception of AR ..................................................................235
8.3.2. Discussion.............................................................................................236
8.3.3. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Objectives of AR.....................................238
8.3.4. Discussion.............................................................................................239
8.3.5. How Teachers see the Stages of AR ......................................................240
8.3.6. Discussion.............................................................................................241
8.3.7. Teachers’ View of Implementing AR.....................................................241
8.3.8. Discussion.............................................................................................242
8.3.9. Teachers’ View of Data Collection Tools.............................................242
8.3.10. Discussion...........................................................................................243
8.4. PARTICIPANT TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF 'ACTION PLANS' (1998 & 1999).......244
Introduction.....................................................................................................244
8.4.1. Teachers’ Views of Action Plans...........................................................244
8.4.2. Discussion.............................................................................................249
8.5. PUPILS’ EXPERIENCES OF ACTION PLANS (1998 & 1999)...........................251

Contents v
Introduction.....................................................................................................251
8.5.1. Pupils’ Views of Action Plans...............................................................252
8.5.2. Discussion.............................................................................................255
8.6. TEACHERS’ OVERALL VIEWS OF AR ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 258
Introduction.....................................................................................................258
8.6.1. Teachers’ Overall Views of Action Research........................................258
8.6.2. Discussion.............................................................................................260
8.7. HEAD TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTION RESEARCH........................................261
Introduction.....................................................................................................261
8.7.1. Head teachers’ views from the extracts................................................261
8.7.2. Discussion.............................................................................................263
8.8. THE LEA’S VIEWS OF ACTION RESEARCH. .................................................264
Introduction.....................................................................................................264
8.8.1. The Deputy Manager’s View of AR.......................................................264
8.8.2. Discussion.............................................................................................265
8.9. THE CONCEPTUALISATION OF BARRIERS ARISING DURING THE STUDY .....265
Introduction.....................................................................................................265
8.9.1. Teacher-Based Reasons........................................................................266
8.9.2 School-Based Reasons (SBR).................................................................271
8.10. PARTICIPANT TEACHERS’ SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER AR STUDIES ......278
Introduction.....................................................................................................278
8.11. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................283
8.11.1. Before the Study ..................................................................................283
8.11.2. During the Study .................................................................................283
8.11.3. After the Study.....................................................................................283
CHAPTER NINE: IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ................................285
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................285
9.1. REVIEW OF THE OBJECTIVES ........................................................................285
9.2. THE STUDY PROCESS.....................................................................................286
9.3. REVIEW OF THE SITUATION BEFORE THE STUDY.........................................286
9.4. REVIEW OF THE ISSUES THAT EMERGED FROM THE STUDY........................287
9.4.1. Legal (political) Issues..........................................................................287
9.4.2. Educational Issues ................................................................................288
9.4.3. Governmental Issues.............................................................................289
9.4.4. Social, Cultural and Personal Issues..................................................289
9.5. SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL FINDINGS........................................................289
9.6. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY...............................................................294
9.6.1. Introduction of AR in Turkey.................................................................294
9.6.2. Initiation of Change in the Context.......................................................295
9.6.3. Teachers’ Professional Development....................................................296
9.6.4. Improvement of Language Teaching.....................................................299
9.7. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.........................................................................300
9.8. FURTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR UNDERTAKING AR IN TURKEY.....................301
9.9. SOME TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS .................................................................302
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................304
APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................330

Abbreviations vi
A GLOSSORY OF TERMS
AL Action Learning
ALM The Audio-Lingual Method
AR Action Research
AS Action Science
Assist. Prof. Assistant Professor
Assoc. Prof. Associate Professor
BEL Basic Education Law
CARE Centre for Applied Research in Education
CARN Classroom Action Research Network
CLT Communicative Language Teaching
CR Case Report
CS Case Study
DfEE Department for Education and Employment
DM The Direct Method
EAR Educational Action Research
ELT English Language Teaching
ERIC Educational Resource Information Centre
ESL English as a Second Language
FFW First Field Work
FL Foreign Language
FOAR First Order Action Research
FTP The Ford Teaching Project
GB Great Britain
GTM The Grammar Translation Method
HCP The Humanities Curriculum Project
HEC The Higher Education Council
ILL Inter Library Lending
INSET In-service Education and Training
INSET In-service Teacher Education and Training
ITT Initial Teacher Training
L1 First Language (mother tongue)
L2 Second Language
LAD Language Acquisition Device

Abbreviations vii
LEA Local Education Authority
M.Phil. Philosophy of Master
MA Master of Arts
MOE Ministry of Education
NC National Curriculum
NEBL National Education Basic Law
NES The National Educational System
PF Pedagogic Formation
Ph.D. Philosophy of Doctor
PSS Phonetic Semantic and Scriptural [similarity]
RIA Reflection in Action
ROA Reflection on Action
RP Reflective Practice
SBR School Based Reasons
SFW Second Field Work
SL Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
SLT Second Language Teaching
SOAR Second Order Action Research
T Teacher [T1, T2, etc.]
TBR Teacher Based Reasons
TGNA The Turkish Grand National Assembly
CARN Classroom Action Research Network
the UK United Kingdom
the US the United States
TL Turkish Lira
TPR The Total Physical Response
TR Teacher Researcher
UEA University of East Anglia
UG Universal Grammar

List of Tables and Pictures viii
LIST OF TABLES
No Page
1 The Structure of Education and Training 24
2 Number of Single and Double Session Schools in Turkey 28
3 Transported Centres and Schools in Turkey 28
4 Teachers Teach in Crowded and United Classrooms 28 - 29
5 The Ratio of Available Places in Present Universities 30
6 An Example about Behaviour Change 38
7 An Analysis of AR on Language Teaching 99
8 Some Findings of the SFW 139
9 Frequently-& Infrequently Used Patterns by Teachers 224 - 225
10 Display of Teachers’ Theoretical Answers on AR 244
LIST OF PICTURES
No Page
1 The Primary School I attended 13
2 The Secondary School I attended 13
3 T4’s Classroom 29
8 A Picture about Vocabulary Teaching by Drawing 253

Abstract ix
ABSTRACT
The thesis explores the possibilities and problems of introducing action research within the
context of English Language teaching in Turkey. It critically reviews the literature on theory
and practice in action research, and attempts to answer the question of how such an approach
might be implemented in Turkey, given that action research originated in countries and context
with very different educational and political cultures. At the heart of the thesis is small-scale
action research which involved seven English lAnguage teachers in three schools in Ordu,
Turkey. In collobaration with the author, as ‘external’ researcher/facilitator, these teachers
attempted to introduce innovations in one aspect of their practice - ie vocabulary teaching.
While this clasroom study is of some interest in its own right, the thesis focuses on the insights
which it offers into the possibilities and barriers to the implementation of action research in the
Turkish context.
The thesis therefore contains one action research project ‘embedded’ in another. Following the
distinction made in the action research literature, it can be considered as an instance both of ‘first
order action research’ (FOAR), and ‘second order action research’ (SOAR). It is a first order
study in that I was a reflective researcher-practitioner, working through the cycles of an action
model in order to address general questions concerning the possibilities of introducing action
research in Turkey. Thus I progressed through the stages of an action cycle - formulating
problems, trying out solutions, evaluating outcomes etc. However, since one of my solutions
was itself an action research study - ie the classroom study of vocabulary teaching - this latter
study can be considered an instance of second order research (SOAR), since I analyse and
comment upon the innovations carried out by other practioners.
The thesis is organised into four major parts. Part One is introductory and introduces the study,
its objectives, the rationale and the self-reflection of myself as author. Part Two is primarily
theoretical. It provides a critical review and comparison of different models of action research,
and attempts to reconcile these with contemporary theories of language teaching. The cultural
and contextual conditions of education in Turkey are also discussed. Part Three is
implementational and illustrates the procedures and strategies involved in implementing the
classroom study, involving the action cycles and action plans followed by the teachers. Part
Four is analytical. It provides an analysis of the empirical data collected during the classroom
study and a discussion of the issues which emerged. The final part of Part Four discusses the
general implications of the study for the future develepment of action research in Turkey.

1
PART ONE
CHAPTER ONE
CHAPTER TWO

Chapter One 1
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1.Statement of the Problem
The history of language teaching and learning studies is old in Turkey, as will be seen in
Chapter 3, and the findings of all academic studies became available after the
establishment of the Documentation Centre (diary, 6/4/1999, p.83) in the Higher
Education Council (HEC)1
in 1987. My review of the Dissertation Catalogues produced
by the HEC indicates that language studies are assembled under 6 headings in these
catalogues as follows:
- American Language and Literature,
- English Language and Literature,
- French Language and Literature,
- German Language and Literature,
- Education and Training,
- Linguistics.
The review of these studies indicates that there are currently a few [three] Action
Research (AR) studies and two of them are at MA level (Tomakin 1996, Atikler 1997).
The former investigated the feasibility of using an AR study in Turkey and explored 16
teachers’ views of AR. Although no conclusive results were found about the feasibility,
all of the teachers’ views of AR were positive. The latter investigated whether the use of
AR by an English teacher contributed to his/her self-development. It was found that the
teacher experienced self-development in terms of knowledge, skills and awareness of
teaching practices.
The AR study at Ph.D. level (Onel 1998) aimed to see whether or not the use of an AR
approach helped teachers become reflective and collaborative in their teaching and if AR
influenced teachers’ attitudes towards professional development and their being open to
student feedback. It was found that teachers benefited from being engaged in AR and
frequently gave feedback to students. In addition, teachers’ attitudes towards
collaboration and professional development changed positively.
1
Note that the HEC provides an index of the all-academic studies finished in 1987 and onwards.

Chapter One 2
However, the AR studies at MA level did not produce/use any action plans and were
small-scale research. The AR study at Ph.D. level did not explore a) the contextual
obstacles [social, cultural, legal etc.] and b) the views about the initiation and
introduction of AR studies to various contexts [for the first time] sufficiently. It did not
also explore the potential relationships of AR and language teaching theories.
My review of the Dissertation Catalogues also indicated that the focus of the particular
action research study -vocabulary teaching - chosen by participant teachers and me- had
not been taught before by the use of an AR approach [(e.g. Karaaslan 1996, Dogan 1996,
Tum 1995, Kurt 1992, Daloglu 1991, Tokmakcioglu 1990, Mogol 1990, Sahinel 1988,
Kiziltan 1988, etc.)]. Consequently, it can be argued that either far less attention was
given to the use of AR studies or the notion of AR was not widely known by teachers,
researchers and academics in Turkey.
1.2. General Rationale
So the rationale for undertaking this Ph.D. study can be stated as follows. Although there
are several AR studies in the research context, we know that using the AR approach in a
context, not only for the first time, maybe many times, may give us clearer ideas about
its usability in that context. So the repetition of AR studies in a research context may
contribute to the development of AR theories about that context.
This study shows that the previous AR studies undertaken in other contexts (e.g.
England, France, etc.) may produce both positive and negative outcomes about English
language teaching, but these studies do not provide many pointers about how the AR
study should be undertaken in Turkey. Likewise, these studies do not give many clues
about potential outcomes of the AR study that would be undertaken in Turkey. This is
because social and cultural conditions of the research contexts are different and each
research context needs to be explored individually (Cohen & Manion 1996).
The study also shows that undertaking AR studies in various contexts and cultures all
over the word may give us a global understanding of the conditions of contexts that
facilitate or constrain the AR studies. In this way, action researchers can produce some
general guidelines by looking at cross-cultural issues and problems. Similarly, action
researchers can also generate some hypotheses by analysing the positive and negative
outcomes of those AR studies.

Chapter One 3
This study further stresses the necessity and importance of conducting AR studies in
Turkey to develop teaching and teacher development; to quote Elliott (1985):
In my view, the institutionalization of collaborative reflection
about the practice of teaching (action research) within the
educational system is a necessary condition for the development
of teaching as a profession. (Elliott 1985, p.259)
Since AR, as we shall read in Chapter 4, is a teacher-based research approach in schools
(Elliott 1995), its use by the participant teachers in Turkey could initiate a number of
innovations. It was hoped that participant teachers in this study might increase their self-
awareness by employing an inquiry-based approach and this would contribute to their
professional development. Similarly, the use of AR by teachers may assist them to
question theoretical rules, methods and theories. In this way they may have a critical eye
on materials and learners and assess their pros and cons. It was also hoped that the
endowment of teachers with the knowledge of AR might enable teachers to know their
students/pupils individually and to understand their needs. This would also give teachers
an opportunity to produce and use appropriate action plans in line with learners’ needs
and wants. Overall, the above noted expectations could, it was envisaged, improve
English language teaching in Turkey if they were put into the practice.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
In order to explore these expectations, this AR study undertaken in Turkey has
investigated the following ‘objectives’. Here the terms ‘research questions and
objectives’ are interchangeably used. In this sense, the study investigated one specific
and some general objectives. This was because the general objectives of the study were
primarily investigated by the researcher himself, but the specific objective of the study
was investigated by the researcher and participant teachers together.
The general objectives, as will be seen below, refer to the investigation of the 1st
, 2nd
, 3rd
,
5th
and 6th
research questions, whereas the specific objective refers to the investigation of
the 4th
research question and its elements. The focus of the 4th
question, as will be seen
in Chapter 6, was vocabulary teaching.
The derivation of these questions is set out in Chapter 7 [see 7.7.1.]. The general and
specific objectives of this study are:

Chapter One 4
Q 1-) What are the contextual elements [factors] that might support or prevent AR
studies in Turkey?
1) to explore legal, educational, etc. obstacles from the literature.
Q 2-) What does the literature of AR say about the ‘introduction and initiation’ of AR
studies in various contexts for the first time?
1) to explore these views from the literature of AR.
Q 3-) Can we reconcile AR and language teaching theories in order to teach
English more successfully?
1) to review the previous AR studies on language teaching to see if any of these
studies has done so or not,
2) to explore some common points between AR and language teaching theories.
Q 4-) How do those involved in this study view the influence of ‘AR and action plans’
on English language teaching and the selected topic?
1) to explore five participant teachers’ view of AR,
2) to explore five participant teachers’ views of action plans,
3) to explore consulted pupils’ views of action plans,
4) to understand five participant teachers’ overall views of AR,
5) to discover three head teachers’ views of AR,
6) to find out the local educational authority’s view of AR.
Q 5-) How do those involved in this study conceptualise the obstacles to the
implementation of the study in Turkey?
1) to explore various views about the barriers [legal, social, etc.].
Q 6-) How do the participant teachers see the necessary conditions for further AR
studies in Turkey?
1) to explore the participant teachers’ suggestions.
These objectives can be brought under the following general statement of purpose:
To explore the possibilities and problems of implementing an AR
study and to generate suggestions for further AR studies within
the context of English Language Teaching (ELT) in Turkey.
Although the above stated general and specific objectives were considered as unique and
interrelated phenomena, these objectives were investigated by the use of two different
AR models. This was because the general objectives were investigated by me and
exploration of these objectives formed my first order AR (FOAR) (Elliott 1991). Since

Chapter One 5
the specific objective of the study was investigated by the participant teachers and me
together, the exploration of this objective formed my second order AR (SOAR) (Elliott
1991). In doing so the general objectives were investigated/explored by the use of
Whitehead’s (1989) theory and model of AR, whereas the specific objective was
investigated by the use of Somekh’s (1989) and McBride’s (1995) models of AR.
In this sense those who read the design of the study may interpret the study in many
ways. For instance, this study can be named as being an AR in AR (Stuart 1987). The
study can also be seen an AR on AR (Marchel & Gaddis 1998) or a mixture of FOAR
and SOAR. This is because this study uses two models of AR at the same time.
Therefore, the SOAR was embedded in the FOAR and the following figure reflects the
embedded action cycles.The big cycle refers to the FOAR and the small cycle refers to
SOAR.
The above-illustrated figure is an example of action cycles used in 1998 [see Chapter 6
for more information about action cycles and action plans].
1.4. Further Rationale: The Improvement of Language Teaching
The author believes that the use of prescriptive rules about language teaching is rarely
helpful. For instance, the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) aims to teach the target
language through ‘translations’ and mainly uses written materials. The Audio-Lingual
1. Problem
2. Imagining
Solutions
3. Acting
Solutions
5.Reflecting and
Re-planning
4. Evaluating
Actions
1st
cycle
of the
SOAR

Chapter One 6
Method (ALM) stresses the importance of ‘memorisation, drills and structure’. The
Direct Method (DM) aims to teach the target language through ‘imperatives’ and
actions. The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) gives importance to
‘conversation’ in language studies.
Although each method has, at least, several advantages in general, all views posed by
language teaching methods or techniques are ‘prescriptive’ (Aitchison 1993). These
views are theoretical and language teachers cannot speculate much about them in
advance unless they are put into practice in classrooms. All of these methods and
theories also employ pre-decided exercises and techniques consistent with each method
or approach. In addition, these methods do not consider the learning context and the
needs of language learners.
The use of the AR approach unites teaching and researching as a unique phenomenon
(Elliott 1991) and enables the participant teachers to explore ‘which methods,
techniques, etc. are more useful, and to what extent the used methods and techniques are
useful in language classrooms. In other words, the use of the AR approach by language
teachers unites ‘theory and practice’ (Elliott 1991). This can give clearer ideas to
language teachers in Turkey about the effectiveness of methods, techniques, materials
and exercises. With these hopes the study was undertaken from 1997 to 1999, actively
involving teachers in the research. So the use of the AR approach was a methodological
innovation to English language teaching on the selected topic of vocabulary teaching; in
both the participant teachers’ lives and the schools (the cases) where they teach. The
implementation process of the study took place during the following dates:
Registration with UEA 01/01/1997.
1st
cycle of FOAR The First Field Work 25/03/1997 - 27/04/1997.
The Second Field Work 10/11/1997 - 15/12/1997.
2nd
Cycle of FOAR [ see Chapter 6 ]………. 07/03/1998 - 31/12/1998.
3rd
Cycle of FOAR [ see Chapter 6 ] ……… 11/03/1999 - 31/12/1999.
1.5. Evaluating the Study
Special attention was paid to evaluating the study. In order to do this the above
mentioned research questions were produced and used to jointly evaluate the process
and product of the study (Elliott 1991). That is, the research questions aimed at
evaluating process, product and those who were involved in the study. A further note is

Chapter One 7
that the study critically reviews the literature of AR and analyses the collected data in
terms of the teachers as researchers’ movement and AR studies undertaken in schools.
Although Elliott (1991, p.55) states that teachers who neglect curriculum development
“reduce action research to a form of technical rationality”, this study does not consider
separately the professional development of teachers and curriculum development.
However, the study did not ignore the issues of curriculum development and the
assessment of participant teachers. For instance, As Broker et al. (1998) argue, teachers’
professional development can be achieved by using AR-based innovations. In this
perception teachers learn to use their own context to produce solutions to problems and
issues. Similarly, this study attempted to support participant teachers’ professional
development with the help of an external researcher (the author) and their involvement
in an AR study.
1.6. Structure of the Thesis
I started writing the chapters of this study after the first field work (FFW), but the final
construction and order of the chapters began to emerge towards the end of the study.
There are four main parts in the study. The first part is introductory and introduces the
study, its objectives, rationale and the self-reflection of the author. The second part is
theoretical and addresses inter-related issues from one chapter to another. The third part
is implementational and illustrates the procedures and strategies of implementing the
study, action cycles and action plans. The fourth part is analytical and is an account of
data analysis and issues. The following is a brief description of each of these parts.
Part One
Part one consists of the first two chapters of the thesis. Chapter 1 introduces the problem
statement, rationale and objectives of the study, together with expectations from the
outcome of the study.
Chapter 2 is part of my autobiography. This chapter explains three areas of my
autobiography. The first part introduces my language learning experience at primary,
secondary, high school and universities. It raises the issues of language teaching by non-
professionals and the assessment of pupils’ wrong answers, the lack of oral practice, the
traditional way of teaching - memorisation of prescriptive grammatical rules, and rote
learning -, among others. The second part is a self-critique of my English language

Chapter One 8
teaching sessions that took place at a high school and at a state university [Yuzuncu Yil].
The last part presents how I met the notions of reflective teaching during my master’s
study. This autobiography not only revisits my previous experience, therefore, but also
explains how my understanding of language teaching and professional development
grew through this Ph.D. study.
Part Two
Part two covers the next three chapters of the study. Chapter 3 aims to introduce the
research context and its conditions to the reader. The rationale for its inclusion is that
researchers must know the research context and the conditions that prevail before
undertaking any AR study. To that end Chapter 3 briefly introduces the State and
political systems of Turkey, and the National Educational System of Turkey, including
the national curriculum, structure of schools, the higher educational council, initial and
in-service teacher training activities. This chapter also explains how some of the
educational terms are used in the research context. Background information is provided
about language teaching sessions and the current place of English in schools. The
chapter also illustrates the contents of language textbooks, and language teaching by
professionals and non-professionals. Also included are teachers’ and head-teachers’
suggestions to improve education, training and school management. The whole chapter
is devoted to illustrating whether the research context and conditions in Turkey
exemplify top-down or bottom-up relationships. The chapter ends by raising some issues
that need to be individually addressed in the following chapters.
Chapter 4 aims to provide a critical review of the literature of AR while addressing the
issues about the ‘introduction and initiation of AR studies’. The aim of this review is
twofold. One is to introduce the notion of AR to a context [Turkey] where this notion is
either less known or has been less used in language studies. The first section defines the
meaning of key terms, such as action learning, action science, reflective practice and
teacher research. It then introduces the notion of educational AR and its elements -
origin, definition, starting point, objectives, features, stages, data collection tools,
evaluation, and reportage of AR data. Having given an overview of AR, the last part of
this chapter addresses two of the issues highlighted at the end of the previous chapter,
but one of these issues remains unanswered. This issue is about the relationships
between AR and language teaching theories and is addressed in the following chapter.

Chapter One 9
Chapter 5 has one main objective. This chapter attempts to reconcile AR and language
teaching theories in order to explore some common points (patterns). The aim of this is
to teach English more successfully. To that end, the chapter first reviews the previous
AR studies undertaken into language teaching and learning to see whether or not any
research or researcher has made such an attempt. The second part of this chapter makes
another attempt to find the potential common points by comparing and adapting the
features of AR in terms of language teaching theories (approaches, methods and
techniques). In the course of the discussion the chapter introduces several key terms that
are much used in language teaching and learning studies to set the scene.
Part Three
This part consists of two chapters of the thesis. Chapter 6 aims to introduce the action
models and action plans used while undertaking the FOAR and SOAR. To that end, it
first describes how the starting points of two different action cycles were identified. It
then introduces the action models and action plans used in 1997, 1998 and 1999. In the
last section the chapter evaluates the outcomes of the FOAR and SOAR. This chapter
concludes that not only action plans themselves, but also the researcher's efforts to
introduce and initiate AR in various contexts can be included within an action cycle.
Apart from the above-mentioned objectives, this chapter also provides some
methodological information about the design of the study [AR].
Chapter 7 provides further information on the methodological procedures, strategies and
design of the study. Its main objective is to reveal how AR and case study approaches
were used as one unique method while planning and conducting the study. It starts with
a review of literature and an explication of the objectives of the study. It then explains
the procedures of gaining access, selection of participants and identification of ethical
rules. The next part explains the data collection and analysis procedures. In doing so it
explores the notion of cases, both in theory and the cases in my particular study. In
addition, this chapter offers some critical views about the reliability, validity and
generalisability.
Part Four
This part consists of two chapters. Chapter 8 has two basic goals. One is to offer some
descriptive information about language teaching situations, schools and classroom

Chapter One 10
contexts before the actual initiation of the SOAR. The aim is to give readers an
opportunity to compare the situations before and after the initiation of an actual AR. The
remainder of chapter 8 provides a broad descriptive analysis of the implemented study.
In doing so it first provides teachers’, pupils’, head teachers’, etc. views of action
research, action plans, etc. It then offers an overall discussion and interpretation of those
views. This part raises several important issues in the course of analysing data and
answering research questions. That is, this part mainly aims to answer the 4th
, 5th
and 6th
research questions.
Chapter 9 is a summary of outcomes, issues and implications of the study. It first
reviews the objectives, the study process and language teaching situations before the
initiation of the study. It then provides an overall view of the issues that emerged and the
overall findings. The chapter concludes with an account of implications, possible
criticism and further suggestions.

Chapter Two 11
CHAPTER TWO
MY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
A true understanding starts and develops from reflection on one’s
own experience. Theory therefore develops from practice and, as
a result, is owned by all who are involved in delivering this
service. (Hollingsworth, S. et al. 1997, p. 315)
Introduction
The use of autobiography to bring personal perspective is common in qualitative
research. Hence it was assumed that including some of my previous language
teaching/learning experiences would provide some background information about the
research context and my self-reflection during this study. As Clandinin & Connelly
(1994) state the experience I will explain here is my story and part of my life. They also
state this story has “starting and stopping points” (p. 414). So my story explains only
three aspects of my experience. These are; my language learning experience, my
language teaching experience and finally my self-reflection after discovering the notion
of educational action research. In doing so, I use two types of reflections namely;
“backward and forward” (p.417). Backward reflections refer to my past language
teaching and learning experiences. Forward reflections refer to a change in my
understanding about language teaching and learning in the rest of my teaching career. So
the following is the story of these past and future reflections.
2.1. My Autobiography
A bunch of flowers never represents all the flowers in the world, but that bunch may
mean a lot for the person who bought it. By the same token, this life story which briefly
describes me and explains several examples from my language learning and teaching
experience, has a special purpose in that it highlights some issues related to this study
and language teaching cases in Turkey. These examples are only a few from twenty
years of learning and three years teaching experience.
2.1.1. A brief Life History
I was born in a village in Ordu, (Turkey) in 1965. After finishing primary and secondary
schools there, 10 miles away from Ordu, I finished vocational high school in that city in

Chapter Two 12
1983. After passing an entrance examination that is compulsory for those who want to
go to university, I won a place in the school of tourism, where we were trained to be
receptionists. After graduating from that school in 1985, I did military service that is
compulsory for every healthy man over twenty. During this service I took a university
exam again and won a place at the Foreign Language Department of Ataturk University.
After 18 months military service, I registered with that department in 1988 and
graduated in 1992. Seven months after my graduation I was appointed as a language
teacher to a high school in Van. While teaching there, I took exams to become a member
at my current university [Yuzuncu Yil] and I was offered a place at the Faculty of
Education, in March of 1994. I taught English to undergraduates of history, science,
geography, art, and music, among others, for more than one year. Through my success
in KPDS2
[the proficiency exam in languages in Turkey like IELTS3
or TOEFL]4
, I was
given the right to do postgraduate study abroad. I then did my masters study in Applied
Linguistics at Essex University. The module ‘Research Methods for English Language
Teachers’ has affected my ideas about language teaching. Eventually I did my MA and
Ph.D. studies based on these ideas. As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, the
impacts of my previous language teaching, language learning experiences and issues
related to these experiences are still ‘pervasive’ in the research context. It then seems
necessary to explain a few of them in order to illuminate issues concerning this thesis.
2.1.2. Some Reflections about Language Learning
A foreign language was not among the compulsory lessons at primary schools in Turkey
until September 1997, but I started to learn English as a personal interest. When I was
in year 5, I remember borrowing my elder sister’s notebook and jotting down a few
pages of English words. For example, the names of the days, months, seasons, subject
pronouns [ I, You, He, etc.], the name of family members [mother, father, brother, etc.],
some other words such as ‘this, that, these, those, they, rubber, duster, blackboard,
notebook, book, pen, pencil etc’. While learning these words, I had neither the idea of
becoming a language teacher, nor the intention of serving as a university lecturer.
2- KPDS stands for Kamu Personeli Dil Sinavi. It is a proficiency exam in foreign languages and those
who work, or serve at governmental offices and pass this exam get some extra salary.
3
- IELTS stands for International English Language Testing System.
4
- TOEFL stands for Testing of English as a Foreign Language.

Chapter Two 13
The Primary School I attended.
The secondary school I attended after primary education was at the same village.
Indeed, an old building converted into a school in the 1975s by the government had
served as a secondary school for 25 years. As the school was newly opened, we suffered
from lack of teaching materials and qualified teachers. We had sometimes two,
sometimes three qualified teachers at the school. Primary school teachers taught the rest
of the lessons. For example, we did not have any qualified English language teacher
during secondary education. Instead, a primary school teacher tried to teach English. So
the language lessons took the form of question and answer, reading the text, doing
home-work in our notebooks. It is not a surprise that I could not learn basic English to
the necessary level at the second school.
The Secondary School I attended.

Chapter Two 14
My visits to two primary schools (int. 22/4/1999) indicate that there are no English
language teachers at these schools. Primary school teachers teach Turkish instead of
English during English lessons (int. 22/4/1999). My visit to the LEA in Ordu also
indicates that schools in the city centre still suffer from a shortage of English language
teachers (12/5/1999, diary, p. 135). The issue of teaching language by non-qualified
teachers is explained in the following chapter in detail [see 3.3.7. in Chapter 3].
After my secondary education, a vocational high school was my choice because nobody
in my area had managed to pass the university entrance exam. I then over estimated the
difficulty of passing the university entrance exam and went to that school with the hope
that I could get a job and earn my living.
Although there were qualified English teachers there, I could not understand the English
lessons. I still remember, for example, one event that left an unwanted impression on me.
It was in the first year of the high school. The language teacher [NA] asked me a
question about either ‘the present perfect tense’ or ‘the present perfect continuous
tense’. I could not answer it and he said these words angrily “sit down, sit down, you [ I
] are sitting like a sack over there”. I felt so shy in the classroom and I lost my
motivation for the lesson.
To me teachers should not reprimand or discourage learners even if their answers are
wrong. That teacher could have identified what the students knew and did not know. In
this way, the teacher could re-explain identified topics by using different methods or
techniques.
I took the university entrance exam in the final year of high school and managed to win
a place at the tourism department of a school in the 19 May University. We took eight
hours of English and three hours of German lessons weekly, but English lessons were
not split into reading, writing or speaking. The lessons passed in the form of question
and answer, reading texts, writing exercises and homework in our notebooks. We were
expected to answer questions in the written form during the examination of those
lessons. I can say that no time was spent to improve students’ oral practice. In those
days I assumed that if I knew grammar, I could speak and express myself properly.
At the end of school the language teacher [RA] gave the name of two books:
‘Proficiency in English’ and ‘A Practical English Grammar’ and stated that “if you

Chapter Two 15
(students) buy and study these books” it would mean that “you would have learnt
English”. After finishing the school I did work-experience at a hotel in Kusadasi, a
favourite place with tourists, and completed the degree.
After buying the recommended books and studying them at home, I realised there were
many new topics to be learnt about English grammar. Meanwhile, as I was over twenty,
I served in the army. While doing this service I decided to sit a university exam again
and took the books with me to study. I took the exam in 1987 and won a place at Ataturk
University, as already mentioned. Since it was the middle of military service when I won
it, I registered with that department one year later in 1988 and graduated from there in
1992. When the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced a vacancy in the field of
English, I applied for it and went on to a high school in Van, a city in the east of Turkey.
2.1.3. Some Reflections about Teacher Training
Now I will illuminate, with a few examples from my undergraduate education, how we
were taught and trained in the university. My intentions here are not to blame the
current system or to patronise the teaching staff in the department, but to clarify the
traditional ways of teacher training in the cultural context of this AR study in the 1990s.
For example, we studied the book ‘English Grammar in Use’ by Murphy in year one.
That book includes about a hundred units and each unit refers to a new topic. This book
offers a great number of descriptive rules about how language should or should not be
used. Some examples are; use ‘if' to make a conditional sentence, use ‘does’ with the
third person singular in making a question sentence etc. The academic year including
first and second terms is about thirty weeks and we had to finish three new units each
week.
The grammar teacher (FA) explained lessons in this way: he read rules from the book
one by one. Sometimes he uttered a sentence and asked us to translate it from English to
Turkish or vice-a versa. We were expected to memorise grammatical rules and answer
the questions during sit down exams. These rules are theoretical and can be forgotten
easily unless they are practised or used in a context. In my view, teaching grammar can
be taught in other ways such as games, discussion, activities etc., but this depends on
grammar teachers’ undergraduate training and conventional practice.

Chapter Two 16
The other memory included here is about the History of English Literature module. We
took this module in years 2, 3 and 4. The following topics were taught by various
lecturers; oral and written literature, the Roman invasion, the Norman invasion, the
influence of French, re-establishment of English, the Renaissance, the Elizabethan Age,
the Victorian Age, ‘Vanity Fair’, ‘Tom Jones’, Becket’s ‘Waiting For Godot’, among
others.
Each lesson takes 50 minutes in universities. When the lesson started, the course
lecturer would read summary information, sentence by sentence, from his/her written
notes about that day’s topic and we (students) would try to write down that information
in our notebooks. That is, we had to catch/understand what they spelled out. During the
exams, we were expected to answer the topical questions.
The third example is about the Speaking [Conversation] module. By name it suggests
that learners’ communication ability should be improved, and exercises and dialogues
should be based on oral practice and live speech in the classroom. Exams for this
module could have been based on oral practice [face to face conversation] with the
module teacher rather than sitting for written exams.
2.1.4. Some Reflections about Language Teaching
Up to now, I have provided a few examples from my learning experience. Now I will
explain a few examples from my language teaching experience. Actual teaching practice
in the classroom in 1992 made me realise the difficulty of language teaching and dealing
with students. Because there were many techniques and methods in the literature, and I
had no idea of which one was better than another. Although I had much motivation to
teach, some students showed negative reactions to lessons and me. They would ask me
‘why do we learn English?’, ‘we will finish school this year and where do we use it?’,
‘why do you teach us English?’ etc. Sometimes, they did not say a single word during a
lesson or participate in lessons at all. When they did not engage in the lessons, I
sometimes felt as if I was teaching or talking to the walls of the classroom. Once, they
[class T] left the classroom during a lesson; I took disciplinary action and eventually
they were punished and kept away from school, for three days.
Similar difficulties occurred again while teaching English at my current university
[Yuzuncu Yil]. There, foreign languages [English, German, etc.] are taught only in year

Chapter Two 17
one. I remember some of the undergraduates were saying that ‘we will be science, art,
history, primary school teachers etc., we will not teach English, so why do we learn it?’
In general, I was unaware of the notion of researching and teaching at the same time
when I taught English at the high school and my current university. My undergraduate
transcript indicates that the departmental curriculum did not include any module on
‘research’ [see appendix A]. Hence it seems understandable for one not to be reflective
upon students’ dislikes and prejudices. If I had had the knowledge of research, it is
possible that I could have learnt students’ likes and dislikes.
The emphasis was on grammatical rules of English in my language classrooms at those
schools because of publicly held exams [KPDS and university entrance exams]. The
KPDS is a proficiency exam in foreign languages and is still used in Turkey. Unlike the
ILETS and TOEFL exams, the questions asked in the KPDS exams are mostly about
‘grammar rules’. Although it includes some questions related to ‘comprehension and
translation’, this exam never asks questions which measure examinees’ listening and
writing abilities. For that reason, examinees give priority to grammatical rules to pass
this exam. Hence I paid more attention to teaching grammatical rules. As a result, when
I arrived in Britain in 1995 for the first time, I could not express my needs and myself
properly because of my poor spoken English. It was then that I realised that written and
spoken languages are different and people in the UK do not always use grammatically
correct sentences in their daily life.
If I had known that grammar-based teaching was not much used or reflective practice
was better than rote learning, it is likely that I would not have used it while teaching. If I
had known that researching gives teachers some idea about teaching materials and
methods, I could have identified the impacts of my teaching.
Although I now criticise my manner of teaching English through grammatical rules in
the past, I have only come to this conclusion after doing postgraduate study in Britain.
As Chomsky’s ideas of universal and generative grammar impressed me during my
undergraduate study in Turkey, I did my master’s study in Applied Linguistics at the
Essex University. However, I found linguistic theories mostly ‘pure’ and prescriptive
and my ideas of language teaching gradually changed during this study. Here the
module on Research Methods for English Language Teachers affected me. This module
is about research, reflection, action, reflective practice, classroom observation,

Chapter Two 18
interview etc. Briefly, this master’s study was an important turning point that changed
my ideas of language teaching from grammar-based teaching and the communicative
approach to ‘teaching and researching’ at the same time.
I had not heard about First Language Acquisition (L1), Second Language Acquisition
(L2), Action Research (AR), Reflective Practice (RF), Qualitative Research, Case Study
(CS), Research Methods in Language Learning/Teaching, Curriculum Change, Data
Analysis Methods and so forth in Turkey. After having a chance to do a Ph.D. in the UK,
the articles and books I read have enriched my understanding of language teaching. For
example, I used Hopkins’ (1996) book in doing practical classroom observations.
Elliott’s (1991) book helped me to use practical guidelines during my research project
in Turkey. With Fullan (1991) I learned the importance of addressing participants’
needs. In addition, Richards & Lockhart’s (1996) book on reflective teaching in second
language classrooms provided a solid example of AR case study at the end of each
chapter.
These are only a few of the books that have enlightened me. The total outcome of my
reading helped me to question my undergraduate education and enabled me to cast a
critical eye on my previous teaching sessions at the high school and university. Now I
realise that most of how I taught, what I taught and how I approached learners in the
past were very questionable. I frequently told my students ‘this is how I teach, you need
to learn it if you want to pass’. That is, I was forcing them to memorise or parrot the
rules, etc. Having reading the literature of AR, I now understand that agreement through
bottom-up decision-making in teaching activities is fairly important (Elliott 1991).
These issues pervade this research context. Obviously, languages can be taught by using
various types of methods, techniques and approaches. The important thing is that
language teachers must know what is happening in their classrooms, which method is
better, which technique is not working etc. In order to find out what happens, teachers
need to ask questions, make observations, have a critical eye, make changes if
necessary, and all of these activities can be summarized, for me, under the notion of
action research or reflective practice.
Through reflection, teachers can try different methods and techniques in order to teach
well. They can discover learners’ attitudes and views about their teaching sessions. This
then enables them to revise or change their style. They can trial the teaching materials

Chapter Two 19
too. Through reflection, they can do something different rather than doing routine things
every day. Through reflection, teachers can make collaborative decisions. This suggests
the inclusion of individuals in choosing, planning, deciding, and this process improves
the social relations among the participants.
2.2. Conclusion
It can be seen that critical reflection on my previous language learning and teaching
experiences changed my understanding of language teaching. It can be claimed that any
critical reflection depends on one’s self-understanding and self-awareness.
Having briefly explained some aspects of my previous experiences, I now turn to
consider the undertaking of this study. This raised several questions: ‘do I (we) need to
know the context?, can I (we) undertake an AR study without knowing the context? or
what do I (we) need to know about the research context before initiating the study?, etc.
In this context Cohen & Manion (1996), while explaining the possible occasions to use
AR in education, state the significance of knowing the research context as follows:
Of course, it would be naive of us simply to select a problem area
in vacuo, so to speak. We have also to consider the context in
which the project is to be undertaken. More specifically this
means bringing in mind factors that will directly affect the
outcomes. One of these concerns the teachers themselves. ...
Another important factor concerns the organisational aspects of
school... (p. 194). One further factor concerns resources: are there
enough sufficiently competent researchers at hand?
(Cohen & Manion 1996, p. 195)
This reference means that researchers need to know the research context prior to the
study and this is the subject of the next chapter.

20
PART TWO
CHAPTER THREE
CHAPTER FOUR
CHAPTER FIVE

Chapter Three 21
CHAPTER THREE
INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH CONTEXT
State control of education, especially when it is arbitrarily
centralised and highly bureaucratic, has detrimental effects on
education;... (Avalos-Bevan 1996, p.74)
Introduction
The aims of this chapter are to introduce the research context and to explore the
elements that might support or prevent the AR studies there. To that end, the first part of
the chapter briefly defines the state system of Turkey and its task and responsibilities in
relation to education. In explaining the legal system some articles of the Constitution and
educational acts are included and translated into English. The second part briefly
explains the historical background, presents the structure of the national educational
system (NES), national curriculum (NC), structure of schools and the HEC, initial
teacher training (ITT), in-service education and training (Inset) and a review of some
terms used in education. The third part explains the historical background of language
teaching and current policy and practices of English language teaching at schools. The
last part reveals teachers’ and head teachers’ suggestions to improve education, training
and school management. Consequently, this chapter is mainly intended for those who are
not familiar with the Turkish State, its education system and language teaching practices
in its schools.
3.1. The State (Turkey)
3.1.1. The Political System
The events which took place from World War One during the 1920s and onwards, led to
the establishment of a new state (Turkey), after the decline of the Ottoman Empire,
based on Western principles.
Ataturk and his friends, after winning the war of independence and opening the new
parliament [the Turkish Grand National Assembly] (TGNA) in Ankara in 1920,
undertook to develop some changes in the legal, educational, social and cultural life of

Chapter Three 22
the people (Kiratli 1988). We begin with constitutional and social changes. Educational
changes are explained in the following heading [see 3.2.].
Since the TGNA abolished the Sultane (authority) of rulers of the Ottoman State in 1922
and the Caliphate in 1924, which refers to the leader of all Muslims, these changes
meant the end of the Ottomans and their rules (Velidedeoglu 1989, & Kara 1998). The
TGNA also changed some articles of the constitution accepted in 1921 and declared in
1923 that the new state was a Republic. The constitution accepted in 1921 was revised in
1924, 1961 and 1982. The last two changes took place because of military coups and the
related articles of the 1982 Constitution define the political system as follows:
Article 1: The Turkish State is a Republic.
Article 2: The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and
social state governed by the rule of law, bearing in mind the
concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice;
respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Ataturk, and
based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.
Although the newly established state made two attempts to enact a democratic system
between years of 1923 and 1950, those who supported the Ottomans, the Sultanate and
the Caliphate became members of opposition parties during that time. As a result those
parties were banned from political activities, and only one political party (Republican
Populist Party) ruled Turkey till 1950 (Kara 1998).
In order to westernise the legal system of Turkey civil law, contract law, criminal law (in
1926) and commercial law (in 1928) were taken from Europe (Adem 1995). In another
change the article relating to religion (Islam) was abolished in the Constitution in 1928
(Adem 1995) and from then on the state policy has been based on a ‘secular system’
which refers to keeping religion and religious values/beliefs separate from legal, political
and educational activities.
As has been seen, the first article of the Constitution declares the political regime as a
‘republic’, the second article defines Turkey as a ‘democratic, secular and social state’.
Here the words ‘republic and democracy’ are used interchangeably and refer to the free
election of mukhtars, mayors, and deputies by citizens and the election of Presidents by
the TGNA. In this context the tenth article is also important. It says:

Chapter Three 23
Article 10: All individuals are equal without any discrimination
before the law, irrespective of language, race, colour, sex,
political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect or any
such consideration...
This is the general framework of the state, its tasks and responsibilities. I turn now to the
educational system of Turkey and major educational acts.
3.2. National Educational System of Turkey
3.2.1. Background of the National Educational System
Similar to the state policy explained above, the emergence of the NES starts with t
he
establishment of the new state in the 1920s. After the declaration of the Republic in
October 1923, religious schools (tekke and madrasah)5
which existed under the
Ottomans were closed in March 1924 (act no. 430) and this law also annexed all schools
to the MOE (Basaran 1994 & Arslanoglu 1997). Hence there was a transition from a
religious system to a secular one.
The other crucial change was brought about in November 1928, during which year the
use of the ‘Latin alphabet’ in written and spoken languages instead of Arabic was
accepted (Mumcu et al. 1986, Adem 1995). This change also took place in order to
westernise the education system. In general, the process of change in the education
system went on through acts of 1943, 1958, 1961, 1964, 1973, 1978, 1981, 1992, 1997
and 1999. Among these the National Education Basic Law (NEBL) accepted in 1973
and the Basic Education Law (BEL) accepted in 1997 are still important and determine
the principles of the current education system (Arslanoglu 1997).
3.2.2. Present Structure of National Educational System
According to the Constitution, the state takes major responsibility to provide educational
opportunities for its citizens. In this respect the Constitution identifies the principles of
the national education system, together with the rules, and regulations about education
and training activities. Thus the rules and regulations are the reflection of the political
system. The constitution has several articles that define the responsibility of the state as
follows. For instance, according to article 27 “everybody has the right to study and teach
freely and explain and disseminate science and arts...”. In addition, article 42 defines
educational rights of the citizens in Turkey as follows:

Chapter Three 24
- No one shall be deprived of the rights of learning and education... -
Training and education shall be conducted along the lines of the
principles and reforms of Ataturk...,
- The freedom of training and education does not relieve the
individuals from loyalty to the Constitution. ...,
- Primary education is compulsory for all citizens of both sexes
and free of charge in state schools. ...,
- No language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother
tongue....
- Foreign languages to be taught in training and education
institutions of training and education and, ...
Two institutions -the MOE and HEC- are mainly responsible for running educational
and training activities in Turkey. The MOE is a part of the Council of Ministers and the
Parliament, whereas the HEC carries its tasks on the basis of several acts (act no. 2547
and decree no. 124, 301, etc.) (Basaran 1996). The following figure briefly indicates the
structure of the MOE, HEC and their sub-departments (Arslanoglu).
Education
& Training
Ministry of Education Higher Education Council
Council of Education General Council
Permanent Councils Inter-universities Council
Main Service Departments Examination Council
Supply Departments Inspection Council
Consultant and Supervision Dept. Management Council
LEA
Foreign Affairs
Youth Dormitory Services
As stated-above the (NEBL) and (BEL) determine the current teaching and learning
activities at schools as follows. The NEBL splits the education system into ‘formal and
non-formal’ (Hesapcioglu 1994, p. 37), (Koc et al. 1996, p. 62). ‘Formal education’
incorporates the school system, regular attendance, teaching and learning at Pre-schools,
Primary Education Schools, High Schools and Higher Education Institutions, whereas
5
- These schools were used to teach religious education during the Ottomans.

Chapter Three 25
‘non-formal education’ covers education, training, counselling and practical activities
provided for those who never entered formal education, or who have left formal
education schools at any time (Arslanoglu 1997).
The NEBL also classifies the objectives of the national education policy as ‘general and
specific’ ones. The general objectives have three articles and the goal of the first article
is to raise all citizens in Turkey in line with Ataturk’s principles and reforms explained
in the Constitution of 1982 (Basaran 1994 & Arslanoglu 1997). Raising the people in
Turkey in terms of Ataturk’s principles and reforms is the first task of the MOE (Adem
1995). Here Ataturk’s principles refer to ‘Republicanism, Nationalism, Secularism,
Populism, Reformism and Statism’. The word ‘reforms’ refers to changes undertaken
after the 1920s and every citizen is legally obliged to accept or preserve those reforms.
The specific objectives of the NEBL have fourteen articles and some of them can be
summarised as follows:
-Education without considering race, sex, religion and language
discrimination among citizens is open to everybody (p. 60),
-Male and female have equal rights and opportunities (p. 60),
-Education system is based on Ataturk’ principles (p. 60),
-Education system is secular, democratic and co-education (p. 61).
(Koc et al. 1996)
As a result, it is seen that the teaching and learning activities, schooling, educational
objectives, etc. are centrally identified and controlled in Turkey. Then the question arises
about whether or not, pupils, students, parents, teachers, head-teachers, and the LEA are
consulted or involved in decision-making about educational issues.
3.2.3. National Curriculum (NC)
Turkey, like the UK, is the among the countries that has a NC for schools. In general the
national curriculum is theoretical and teachers put it into practice as annual plans. In
other words, the annual plans are the practical applications of theoretical propositions at
schools [see Appendix B]. The importance of knowing the ‘policy and practices’ about
the NC of a particular research context (e.g. Turkey) is that preparing annual plans at the
beginning of the school year is a requirement and teachers are required to teach all the
topics included in these plans.

Chapter Three 26
In this context the questions arises as to ‘can action researchers delay or ignore the
national curriculum while undertaking AR research? That is, if teachers themselves
undertake an AR study in their classrooms, what must be the priority of those teachers;
to apply action plans, or to teach the contents of the annual plans per week?
These points were investigated by me to learn about the possibility of ignoring and
delaying the NC in schools in order to apply action plans. Participant teachers stated that
they have to follow the requirement of the annual plans in theory, but they also stated the
cases in which they could use action plans (T2, 25/3/1999 int), (T4, 26/3/1999, int. etc.),
[see sections 8.2.3., 8.9.1. and 8.9.2. in Chapter 8 to read about other barriers].
The following interviews about curriculum development study and a new syllabus
design at some schools in Ordu also provide some clues about undertaking AR studies in
Turkey. These interviews were conducted during the FFW in 1997 to elicit head-
teachers’ views and indicate the possibility of using AR as follows:
ET: ... if I want to carry out a curriculum study for one term on a
trial basis....would it be all right?
MI: although it is considered on the basis of trial, you (I) have to
get permission from the MOE, we never use any book or booklet as
a course book which has not been approved by the Ministry...
(int. 7/4/1997)
ET: ... if I want to carry out a curriculum development study for one
term on a trial basis...?
SK: as to book or booklet trial you have to get legal permission
from the MOE... (int. 24/4/1997)
In addition, to explore the relationships of the NC and the selection of text-books by
schools, one head teacher (CZ, 12/5/1999), one deputy head of the LEA (HC 14/5/1999)
and four participant teachers (T2 14/5/1999, T4 12/5/1999, T5 13/5/1999, T6 14/5/1999)
were interviewed. The excerpt below reflects the general view.
ET: ...how do you choose course books?
T4: they must be published in tebligler dergisi (TD)6
and approved
by the Ministry. The MOE also publishes the names of the
writers,...if books have no approval of the board of education, we
do not use those them... (int. 12/5/1999)
Briefly it can be stated that a) the names of the ‘lessons’ to be taught at schools, b) the
types of the ‘books’ to be used at schools and c) the ‘contents of the books’ are

Chapter Three 27
determined by the concept of the NC in Turkey. The question that remains to be
unanswered is ‘how can teachers cope with national curriculum and AR or action plans
at the same time? [see section 8.9.2. in Chapter 8].
3.2.4. Present Structure of Schools
The current structure of schools in Turkey outlined by the NEBL was accepted in 1973.
In addition, the BEL accepted in August 1997 combined the previous primary and
secondary schools into one school. Prior to this change, primary schooling used to take
five years, but now this basic education, (still compulsory and free of charge at state
schools) takes eight years. According to this new system, the final structure of schools
has been set out as follows:
3.2.4.1. Pre-School Education: This period is not compulsory and covers the education
of children who have not yet reached the age of primary education. Its main aim is to
prepare children for basic education.
3.2.4.2. Primary Education Schools: After the unification of the previous primary and
secondary schools, this new system takes eight years. These schools provide children
with basic knowledge and ensure their physical, mental and moral development. This
education is compulsory for all citizens and is free of charge at public schools. Foreign
language teaching starts in year 4 at these schools now.
3.2.4.3. High Schools: These are general, vocational and technical high schools that
provide a three-year education and prepare students for either higher education or for a
profession.
3.2.4.4. Higher Education: The education period is set at 2 years for undergraduate
studies and 4 years for graduate studies except Veterinary and Medicine Faculties.
Although higher education takes place in several types of institutions (university,
military schools, etc.), this education is more common at universities in Turkey. So
universities consist of implementation and research centres, institutes, colleges,
conservatories, faculties, two-year vocational and technical schools (Basaran 1994).
On the basis of these categories this AR [SOAR] study was undertaken in three types of
schools in Ordu (Turkey). The schools included in this study are disguised by the use of
6
- TD stands for Tebligler Dergisi that is an official circular/newspaper.

Chapter Three 28
acronyms. One is a primary school (OHSTIO), another is a vocational high school
(OATML) and the other is a language-based high school (OAL).
The unification of primary and secondary schools caused some problems. The following
statistical information about schools, single and double sessions helps us to understand
the schools in the research context a little more.
The Number of Single and Double Session Schools in Turkey
City Centres Rural Areas
Single Session Double Session Single session Double Session
Pre-school 3,435 2,736 2,028 137
Primary 6,079 4,674 30,821 2,951
Second 4,716 429 541 22
N. H. School 1,886 337 373 15
VTHS 2,830 7,479 33,390 3,110
(MOE 1999, p. 10)
After the unification of previous primary and secondary schools as one school, some
schools were closed down and the pupils of these schools are transported by buses or
minibuses to the schools in the nearby villages, towns and city centres. The following
figures show the number of such schools and pupils for Ordu and Turkey.
1998-99 Academic Year, Transported Centres and Pupils
Transported Transported Number of Transported Pupils
Centres Schools Year 1,2,3,4,5 Year 6,7,8
Ordu 125 459 5,441 5,447
Turkey 5,649 22,555 263,845 229,130
(MOE 1999, pp. 60-61)
The situations of some schools in the research context are difficult to believe. One is the
crowded classrooms where 40 to 60 pupils sit in each classroom. The other is the ‘united
classrooms’ where pupils from, for example years 1, 2, 3 and 4 sit in one classroom due
to a shortage of school buildings or teachers. Hence one teacher teaches all four years
together, in one classroom. The following figures display the cases in Ordu and Turkey.
1998-1999 Academic Year
Teachers Teach Different Classes At The Same Time
1 teacher 1 teacher 1 teacher 1 teacher
teaches 5 teaches 4 teaches 3 teaches 2
classrooms classrooms classrooms classrooms
Schools Pupils Schools Pupils Schools Pupils Schools Pupils
Ordu 304 10,533 22 381 4 48 0 0
Turkey 7,103 281,639 1,235 28,017 527 15,140 357 16,340

Chapter Three 29
2 teachers 2 teachers 2 teachers 3 teachers
teach 5 teach 4 teach 3 teach 5
classrooms classrooms classrooms classrooms
Schools Pupils Schools Pupils Schools Pupils Schools Pupils
Ordu 156 9,564 3 75 1 6 61 5,754
Turkey 4,500 265,439 266 13,520 93 4,644 1,752 132,532
(MOE 1999, p.66, 67, 68)
The following picture shows a crowded classroom that had about 45 pupils in 1998.
If classrooms are crowded and one teacher teaches different classes of pupils at the same
time, there are several issues to be raised. First, how can external researchers undertake
an AR study under these conditions? The other question is ‘can we involve a teacher
who teaches a united classroom in an AR study? Other points that can be considered are
that ‘is it that crowded or united classrooms are not the best places to undertake AR
study? Are crowded classrooms a barrier to the implementation of AR studies? If so, in
what ways? These were some of the problems for this study.
3.2.5. The Higher education Council (HEC)
Universities in Turkey were annexed t
o the MOE in 1933 and united under the HEC in
1981. The HEC serve as the head of all higher education institutions and the title HEC
presently covers about 70 public and 30 private and foundation universities (see
http//www.yok.gov.tr)
Access to Universities: universities accept students in line with the results of the
examination organised by the Student Selection and Placement Centre, but there are not
sufficient places for all applicants who want to do a university degree (Adem 1995). The

Chapter Three 30
following statistical information indicates the difficulty of getting a place at a university
in Turkey
Year Total Number of Applicants Available Places
1998 1.359.585 290.000
(MOE 1999, p.144)
The diary note I wrote after seeing the outcome of questionnaires used at the OAL and
displayed on the notice board of this school may reveal some idea about students’ views
of university exams.
One of the findings of a questionnaire applied in a high school, in
which T6 and T7 teach, and displayed on the notice board of the
Staff Room caught my attention. The questionnaire answered by
only students in year two of high school and investigated WHY
pupils cut classes. It has several findings, but I was interested in
one of the findings:
Section Four:
Finding 2: 35.9 % of the students fear university exams.
(diary, 21/4/1999, p.99)
The news in the press for 1999 and 2000 years’ university exams is not promising for
applicants. For example, the newspaper (Sabah 7/6/1999) states that about 1, 500, 000
applications were made in 1999, but the quota for 1999 was 267,169 places. This means
that about 80 % of the applicants will be unsuccessful. In 2000 the newspapers (Milliyet
18/6/2000, Sabah 13/7/2000) stated that the number of applications is about 1,450,000
and available places were 295,000. In general, the current available facilities in Turkey
enable only one fifth of applicants go to university.
As a result it can be said that the State, the Constitution and the NEBL state the
importance of equality and equal opportunity in education, but there are not sufficient
places for all the applicants who want to do a university degree in Turkey. Since the
MOE and the HEC take major responsibility for education and training activities, these
institutions must provide more places for those students who want to do a university
degree.

Chapter Three 31
3.2.6. Initial Teacher Training and Education (I T T)
Teacher education and training policies have shown many changes since 1923. The main
changes derive from constitutional reforms in 1921, 1924, 1961 and 1982. Other legal
adjustments and adaptations were made by the MOE and HEC in 1926, 1927, 1930,
1935,... 1982, 1983, 1992, 1999 among others (Arslanoglu 1997). Explaining these
changes individually would occupy too much space. That is why I will explain only the
recent and important changes of the I T T programme, together with two terms
(education and training). First, the distinction between education and training is
explained as follows. According to Demirel (1996, p.3);
Turkish: Egitim… bireyde davranis degisikligi meydana getirme
sureci, ogretim ise bu davranis degisikliginin okulda planli ve
programli bir sekilde yapilmasi surecidir. Egitim her yerde, ancak
ogretim daha cok okulda yapilmaktadir (p. 3).
English: Education... is a process of bringing about change in
individuals’ behaviour, whereas training is the process of
implementation of the above mentioned change according to plans
and programmes in schools. Education is possible everywhere, but
training is generally done in schools.
This view is shared by other such as Varis (1978), Hesapcioglu (1994) and Arslanoglu
(1997) and seems to be pervasive in Turkey. Briefly, the term ‘teacher education’ refers
to theoretical views, whereas the term ‘teacher training’ refers to the four-year period for
student teachers’ undergraduate study at faculties and schools.
Some of the important changes related to teacher training were made in 1973, 1981 and
1997. In the first case the NEBL required all candidate teachers to have a university
degree. It meant that those who finished some types of secondary and high schools used
to serve as primary and secondary school teachers until 1973. In 1981 all higher
education institutions were annexed to the HEC and the training period for teachers was
fixed at 4 years (Adem 1995). In 1997 the programmes of Education Faculties were re-
organised to address the needs of eight-year basic education. This last change also
required those who will teach in years 6, 7, and 8 of primary schools to do a master’s
degree in their subject area. That is, this is compulsory for student teachers. This
programme also gives authority only to Education Faculties to run teacher training
programmes and to train student-teachers (see www.yok.gov.tr). So the following

Chapter Three 32
institutions are entitled to train and prepare student teachers for teaching posts
(Arslanoglu 1997).
a) Education Faculty.
b) Technical Education Faculty.
c) Vocational Education Faculty.
d) Trade and Tourism Education Faculties.
e) Industrial Arts Education Faculties.
f) Theology Faculties.
g) ……………………
As a result, the policy for teacher training requires all student teachers to take modules in
the following areas (Hesapcioglu 1994, p.269) and Basaran 1996, p.78).
i) Subject Area, Subject Area
ii) Pedagogic Formation, Student
iii) General Culture. Teachers
Ped. Form Gen. Cult.
For example, the modules Grammar, Speaking, Writing, Reading, English Literature,
etc. are the subject area of students who are registered with the Department of English
Language. In addition, all candidate teachers have to take some modules under the
heading of pedagogic formation (PF). A separate section is devoted to explaining the
meaning of the PF [see section 3.2.8.4. in this chapter].
As a result of the above-mentioned new I T T programme initiated in 1997, some of the
previous modules taught at the (English) Language Teaching Departments of
universities in Turkey were replaced by new ones. It seems that this new programme
also includes a module translated into English as ‘Research Skills’.
The aim of this module is defined as follows: a) to teach scientific research methods and
techniques with examples, b) to get student teachers to undertake a small scale research
in their subject area [www.yok.gov.tr]. This point needs further attention and I can
explain it as my previous undergraduate experience and an observation. It came to my
attention while reviewing the MA and Ph.D. studies at the HEC. First, the notion of
‘research’ is usually conceptualised as the use of the quantitative approach to study in
Turkey. Hence researchers design and apply questionnaires, produce and test
hypotheses, calculate the standard deviation and present the findings as statistically and

Chapter Three 33
as percentages. Second, although students-teachers study/learn some of the ELT
methods, these are the GTM, the ALM, the DM, CLT, etc.
Considering the fact that there are few AR studies in Turkey, few people are
knowledgeable about AR. It implies that most of the lecturers who teach the above noted
module (Research Skills) cannot teach the notion of AR. Then the question arises about
the introduction of AR studies at different places [schools, faculties, training centres,
etc.] in Turkey. It also seems necessary to explore what sort of topics (qualitative,
quantitative, approaches, methods and techniques) are taught to student teachers by
lecturers during the Research Skills module.
3.2.7. In-service Education and Training (INSET)
Inset studies started in 1960 and the formation of the department as a separate unit in the
Ministry underwent some changes in 1960, 1966, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1982, 1986 among
others (Ekinci et al. 1988). The Ministry currently defines INSET as:
Turkish: Kamu veya ozel kurum veya kuruluslarinda calisan her
seviyeden personele, ise basladiklarindan emekli oluncaya kadar;
ise intibak, iste verimliliklerini artirmak, bilgi ve gorgulerini
tazelemek, yeni durumlara intibaklarini ve ileri gorevlere
hazirlamalarini saglamak maksadiyla yaptirilan egitime, ‘Hizmetici
Egitim’ denilmektedir. (Ekinci et al. 1988, p.31)
English: The activities for people, either in public or state
departments, from the first steps to work until their retirement, to
adapt themselves to the job, to increase efficiency and productivity,
to refresh their knowledge and experience, to adapt to new
conditions and to get prepared for new tasks are called Inset.
The main reason for including this part comes from the findings of the field work studies
undertaken in Turkey in 1997. One of the findings of the field studies indicated that ‘the
teachers who wanted to join in this study were unaware of AR’ [see section 6.2. in
Chapter 6 to read field studies]. Hence it was assumed that running either a short-term [a
few days] Inset activity or some workshop to introduce the notion of AR to teachers and
to prepare them for the study could be useful
3.2.7.1. Goals of Inset

Chapter Three 34
The MOE (1995, pp.4-5) states ten goals and nine principles for the current Inset studies.
The important articles of these objectives can be summarised as follows:
1) to orientate staff serving at various institutions,
2) to identify the shortcomings of the pre-service period of education and
training,
3) to inform the staff about the latest technology, methods and techniques,
4) to train course trainees to get degrees, promotions etc.
3.2.7.2. Types of Inset Activities
Inset activities are undertaken as seminars and courses (MEO 1994, p.766), but it seems
that the academics and the MOE in Turkey define seminars and courses differently. For
Taymaz (1997, p.4) ‘seminars’ aim to change or develop participants’ the cognitive
behaviours in the short term, whereas ‘courses’ aim to change participants’ behaviours
and skills in the long term. According to the MOE (1995, p.4) ‘seminars’ seek to give
participants new knowledge, skills, behaviours, etc. and an evaluation is done at the end;
seminars occur as a group activity, during which participants may discuss the problems
of the education system and suggest potential solutions.
According to the MOE (1995, p.11) there are six types of Inset activity and Taymaz
(1997, p.8) briefly explain this classification as follows:
a) Orientation Training: These are activities for those who worked previously and
started doing similar jobs at new institutions.
b) Basic Training: These courses are designed for the staff who will serve or work at any
institution for the first time.
c) Promotion Training: These courses are designed to inform the staff about the recent
technology and developments in their fields.
d) Field-Shift Training: These courses are run for the staff who will stop serving or
working in a field and do a new task in another field.
e) Progression Training: This sort of training prepares staff for higher status and
management skills.
f) Specific Field Training: Some staff are trained and prepared for specific tasks in this
type of course.

Chapter Three 35
As a result, the Inset activity I planned to run to prepare the teachers for the study can be
named as ‘basic or specific field training’ activity, but this activity did not occur, mainly
because of the double session teaching programme and the participant teachers’ clashing
lesson hours. It can also be claimed that the introduction of AR through Inset activities is
problematic if these activities are run during day time (because of double session, etc.).
3.2.7.3. Organisation of Inset Activities
The Inset courses and seminars are organised by the MOE as nation-wide and locally by
the LEAs (MOE 1994, p.770). The LEA refers to the head of the educational institution
[schools, teachers, etc.] and there is one LEA in each city and town centre. The LEAs
have to get permission from the head officials (governors and kaimakams) of cities and
towns while planning Inset activities, identifying topics and appointing course teachers.
3.2.7.4. Identification of Participants
The governor of each city identifies teachers for local Inset activities, whereas the
Ministry identifies teachers for central Inset activities (MOE 1995). Hence the selection
of Inset participants gains importance and this point is raised by MacLure (1989, p. 76-
83). To pursue this issue I asked some questions about the selection of participants
during my FFW in 1997. Two of the novice teachers (AB, BS) had no idea about this
matter. The other four teachers views can be briefly stated as follows. For (KA) “those
who have five years teaching experience can join” (int. 10/4/1997). In (YS)’s view “...
the Ministry gives priority to those who teach in language-based high schools” (int.
14/4/1997). For (FA) “participation in Inset takes place in two ways; the Ministry can
send an invitation letter to teachers, or we apply...” (int. 18/4/1997). (MA) states that
“we fill in a form and send it to the Ministry, when accepted, we can join" [Inset
activities] (16/4/1997). Consequently, it can be inferred that participation is compulsory
if the MOE invites teachers, but participation depends on various factors in the other
case.
3.2.7.5. Identification of Inset Course Topics
The circulars (MOE 1994), and (MOE 1995) do not state any view as to how the MOE
and the LEAs should identify the topics to be studied during Inset activities. Thus this
point was explored during my FFW in 1997 for the first time. Besides this, further

Chapter Three 36
questions were asked about this issue during the implementation of action cycles in
Turkey in 1999.
As happened earlier, two of the novice teachers had no idea about the choice of Inset
topic. According to the other four Inset participant teachers, the course designers of Inset
activities neither interview nor send questionnaires to learn about teachers’ choices.
These teachers maintain that Inset course designers and the MOE itself determine the
Inset topics.
According to staff (AY) interviewed in the FFW and still serving at the MOE, the Inset
topics to be studied are identified by ‘sub-departments’ within the MOE and this answer
verifies the above mentioned four teachers’ claims.
However a deputy head (HK) (int. 5/4/1999) of Inset department of the Ministry reveals
that Inset topics are identified by: Inset participants, teacher trainers, educational experts,
the LEAs and the Ministry inspectors. It then can be claimed that contents of Inset
activities seemed to be centrally identified by the MOE in Turkey
3.2.7.6. Evaluation of Inset Activities
For the Ministry (1994, p.772) “oral, sit-down exams or practical assessments are done
to judge the outcomes of the Inset activity”. Those who get lower than 45 marks are
considered as ‘unsuccessful’ and a certificate is issued to show ‘participation’. Those
who get over 45 marks are regarded as ‘successful’ and a certificate is given to show
‘success’.
According to the above mentioned staff (AY) serving at the MOE, pre-test, mid-test and
final tests are applied if course teachers teach a new topic, but if some topics are revised,
course teachers give emphasis to the final test. In four Inset participant teachers’ view
‘oral and sit down exams’ are applied and the course designers mark the exam papers
and decide among themselves. For the deputy head (HK) of the Inset department pre-
tests are applied to assess the participants’ level at the outset and final tests are applied at
the end of Inset activities to see the outcomes of the studied topics.
As a result it seems that the participant teachers of Inset do not seem to be involved in
the evaluation process in Turkey, and McBride (1989) criticises this sort of approach by
saying that “criteria for evaluation should be co-operatively established by LEA and

Chapter Three 37
representative groups” (p.40). Elliott (1977) also states the necessity of teachers’
involvement in the process and evaluating the Inset activities from below as follows:
Evaluation from below is a social criticism (p.12) and formative
(p.13). It requires dialogue with participants, but it does not
necessarily require an outside evaluator (p.12). It can influence the
ongoing development of an in-service situation without sacrificing
objectivity. (Elliott 1977, p.13)
In general, the following inferences can be made about the inset activities in Turkey.
- The ministry generally determines the Inset course topics.
- Inset trainers do not involve the participant teachers while assessing the exam papers.
- Inset teacher trainers do not go to schools, after the inset activities are over, to observe
the influences of topics studied at inset centres.
3.2.8. A Brief Review of the Terms Used in Educational Activities
It seems that educational terms such as education, training, evaluation, tests,
examination etc. were translated from western publications and the numbers of those
books are limited in Turkey. For example, academics (Demircan 1988), (Demirel 1990),
(Demirel 1996), (Tekin 1996), (Yilmaz 1996) mostly refer to references published in the
West while explaining educational terms in their books. Hence it seems necessary to
explain these terms to show how they are understood or interpreted.
3.2.8.1. Education
The term ‘education’ is used in different ways by academics. For Celikkaya (1997)
education consists of ‘teaching and learning’ activities because education is a learning
activity as far as students are concerned and education is a teaching action from the point
of view of teachers. He (ibid.) further states that education, which is an interaction
process between teachers and learners, also means to raise/orientate people in
accordance with pre-decided aims.
Some of the academics conceptualise education as being ‘change and behaviour change’.
For example, education is a change process (Onder 1986), a behaviour change of
favoured manners (Erturk 1978) and (Yilmaz 1996), a change process through learning
(Turgut 1991), to endow people with positive behaviour (Adem 1995) and a change
process in individuals’ lives (Demirel 1996). The following example illustrates one

Chapter Three 38
Turkish view of how learning and behaviour change occur. This example was given by
Cilenti (in Tekin 1996, p.5) and translated into English by me as follows;
Context One Context Two Context Three
Teacher: What is this? Teacher: This is an octopus. Teacher: What is this?
[stimulus]. [Teaching]. [stimulus]
Student: I do not know. Student: It is an octopus.
I have not seen it. [Behaviour Change].
[Behaviour]
Briefly, it seems that most definitions focus on behaviour and change. At this point it
becomes necessary to explain what those academics mean by the use of ‘behaviour and
change’ in education and training contexts.
3.2.8.2. Nature of Behaviour in Education
For Binbasioglu (1983) ‘behaviour’ refers to changes which emerge as a result of
learning activities. For Basaran (1994) behaviour means observable, measurable and
conscious outcomes of activities. Ozcelik (1992, p.9) considers teaching as a “process of
change in students’ behaviours”. In Tekin’s view (1994) learning is related to behaviour
and any deed done by live organisms is referred as behaviour. For Demirel (1996)
behaviour must be observable, measurable and desirable.
Although these definitions seem to be different from one another, the books written by
Turkish academics define mainly three types of behaviours to be improved in formal and
non-formal contexts. These are psychomotor, cognitive and affective behaviours
[Ozcelik (1992), Hesapcioglu (1994), Basaran (1996), Tekin (1996)]. It also seems that
these ideas originate from Bloom and Krathwohl (Hesapcioglu 1994, p.71-72) & (Tekin
1996, p.180). The first one is ‘psychomotor behaviours’ which refer to activities
concerned with physical education, fine arts, drawing and students’ products at technical
and vocational schools. The second is ‘cognitive behaviours’ which refer to mental
tasks about remembering certain knowledge, facts or theory, solving a problem by using
formulae, summarising or analysing a text, doing numerical calculations etc. The last
one is ‘affective behaviours’ which refer to one’s feelings toward his/her state flag,
national anthem or giving up one’s seat for elderly or disabled people in public transport.

Chapter Three 39
In general, we see that the concepts of ‘behaviour and change’ are widely used in both
teaching and learning contexts in Turkey. O
n the basis of these views, we see that if
students learn or do something new at schools, it is considered to be behaviour change. It
also means that the educational activities in Turkey seem to be looking at outcomes
[results] to see if learning [behaviour change] has taken place or not.
3.2.8.3. Examinations at schools:(assessment, formative, summative)
The Turkish words ‘olcme and degerlendirme’ are much used in educational books and
contexts by academics. For example, Ozcelik’s (1992) book is called [in Turkish] Olcme
ve Degerlendirme, Tekin’s (1992) book is titled Egitimde Olcme ve Degerlendirme,
Bayrakli’s (1992) book is named Imtehan Pedagojisi and Olcme-Degerlendirme
Teknikleri. In an English-Turkish dictionary (1995) the Turkish word olcme means to
measure (p.297) and the word degerlendirme means to apprise, to evaluate, to assess, to
estimate, to utilise...(p.95).
In this context we need to explore how these two words (olcme and degerlendirme) are
used in the Turkish and British contexts. We begin with the British context first. For
instance, Protherough et al. (1989) state that:
Assessment ... is used about the familiar process of grading and
judging personal achievements, abilities and aptitudes, whereas
evaluation is used about a whole study ... and is a process of
gathering information in order to make decisions about how
successful the outcomes have been.
Protherough et al. (1989, p.153)
The CARE booklet (1994) also states that policy and programmes are evaluated,
people’s activities and achievements are assessed.
It is possible to see various views about the above noted terms in the Turkish context.
For instance, Yilmaz (1996) states that “oral and written exams, short answered exams,
multiple choice, true-false, achievement tests are used to make a decision about students’
success or failure”. For Demirel (1996, p.97) “recently multiple choice tests are widely
used in deciding students’ success”. Likewise, some other academics state that home-
work, matching, standard tests, yes-no questions, fill in the blanks, finding the best
answer, open or closed ended questions, etc. serve the same objective in deciding about

Chapter Three 40
students and pupils’ performance at schools. We can conclude that Turkish academics
use the word degerlendirme to mean assessment in English.
a) What is measurement (olcme): For Bayrakli (1992) measurement and numbers are the
major elements of science and ‘tests’ are scientific measurement in education. In another
view measurement in education refers to means which are used to identify the outcomes
of teaching activities (Hesapcioglu 1994). Tekin (1996) states that we examine object(s)
to see whether or not they have certain features. If they have, we observe and record
these features through numbers and symbols and this process is called measurement.
b) What is assessment (degerlendirme): For Hesapcioglu (1994) assessment is a decision
making process about objects and people. In this way ‘numbers and symbols’ collected
through measurement become more meaningful and we reach clearer ideas about people
and events (ibid). Yilmaz (1996) holds the view that assessment is a decision making
process and we measure first and then assess measured outcomes. Besides, Tekin (1996)
says that assessment is based on comparisons of two things. He (ibid) continues that
measurement is usually objective, but assessment is usually subjective.
c) What is/are assessed and Why: For Tekin (1996) since the aim of education is to
cause behaviour change at the expected level and goals, students’ answers must be
measured to see whether or not certain behaviours have changed. In addition, Ozcelik
(1992) and Tekin (1996) state that we must assess ‘psychomotor, cognitive and
affective’ behaviours in education. In their view psychomotor behaviours taught at
schools are directly observable, whereas cognitive and affective ones are not directly
observable. Hence cognitive and affective behaviours are measured through their signs
or indications. In this context Ozcelik (1992, p.3), Tekin (1996, p.7) & Buyukkaragoz et
al. (1997, p.3) state that schools which apply “pre-planned and purposive objectives”
give priority to the development of cognitive and affective behaviours rather than
psychomotor ones. The participant teachers’ and head-teachers’ views were explored in
1998 about the exam systems in schools, and the examinations set by the English
language teachers (see section 3.3. in this chapter).
3.2.8.4. Pedagogic Formation (PF)
As noted earlier, student teachers are trained in three major areas namely; a) their subject
areas, b) pedagogic formation and c) general culture (Basaran 1996). The concept of PF

Chapter Three 41
refers to a set of modules taught in Education Faculties of universities in Turkey. All
undergraduate students compulsorily take the PF modules. Appendix A indicates the
names of the PF modules when I was an undergraduate; appendix C indicates the names
of new PF modules, after the initiation of the joint project between the MOE and HEC.
While entertaining the possibility of undertaking this AR study at a language teaching
department, the head (ZE) of the English Language Teaching Department of 19 May
University was visited during my FFW in 1997 and her views of changing the modules
in that department were discussed. Her view was:
Now I run a pre-decided programme..... As of the 1998-1999
academic year we have to run a programme which will be sent by
the HEC. This is a joint project which was initiated by the World
Bank and the MOE. This study aims to apply a standard
programme in all foreign language departments in Turkey.....
(int. 20/3/1997)
While implementing the 3rd
step of the FOAR study in May 1999, this head (ZE) was
interviewed again. She told that the HEC project had been put into practice in the
academic year 1998-1999 and the HEC would inspect all language departments in
Turkey at the end of the year to see the outcomes of the project. The following extract
indicates the possibility of changing any of the modules by the teaching staff of that
department.
ET: … yes as a last thing please explain suggesting new modules
to be taught at the department.
ZE: now we have no chance of suggesting new modules, the
module we apply now was sent by the HEC, at the end of May
1999 we will be inspected ..... the HEC wants us to apply this
programme, they are very strict on this issue, in the past....
ET: can I have a photocopy of this one? (int. 11/5/1999).
With this new project, [see Appendix C], some of the previously taught PF modules
were replaced by new ones. Although the PF modules have to be compulsorily taken by
all student teachers, I have written the following comment in my research diary about the
deficiency of previous modules in general.
The PF modules taught in history, geography, art music, biology,
science and language teaching departments (English, French,
German ...) are the same. There is no specific module related to
teaching English or related to teaching mathematics. I think there

Chapter Three 42
ought to be specific modules about how to teach English, how to
teach mathematics etc. (diary 3/5/1999)
The PF modules are about styles of teaching and student teachers are expected to gain
general insights into the methods of teaching, adapting themselves as teachers and
adopting teaching as a task by studying these modules. As a result, it is seen that the
teaching staff of the universities are not allowed to change any module of the (English)
language departments.
3.3. English Language Teaching in Turkey
3.3.1. Background to Foreign Language Teaching
Article 42 of the Constitution and the MOE (1997, p.606) regard the teaching of a
language other than Turkish as being ‘foreign language’ teaching. The terms such as first
language (L1), second language (L2), foreign language (FL) will be explained in
Chapter 5 while explaining the relationships of AR and language teaching theories. This
section provides information about the empirical side of English language teaching in
Turkey. For instance, Demirel (1990) analyses language teaching studies in two areas,
namely before and after the declaration of the Republic in 1923. Sibyan (primary),
Madrasah and Enderun were three types of schools in the pre-republic era.
The language used at Sibyan schools was a mixture of Turkish, Arabic and Persian.
Their aim was to teach basic religious culture to children. Arabic, as a means of teaching
and instruction, was used and taught at ‘Madrasah’ that were educational institutions
under the Ottomans. Arabic and French, apart from Turkish, were taught in ‘Enderuns’
(university) that aimed to provide educated and cultured servants for palaces (Demirel
1990).
In the pre-republic era the programme of modernisation at military and medical schools,
the opening of Robert College in 1863 and the opening of high schools were a few of the
events that contributed to the development of language teaching studies. The Robert
College opened in Istanbul aims to introduce American language and culture in Turkey.
In the 1900s political events influenced foreign language teaching as follows. After 1908
the teaching of French as a foreign language became compulsory at all types of schools
and the effect of French culture and language spread until 1915. Then German became
the most widespread language between 1915 and 1945 because Turkey and Germany
were allies during World War One. Fast scientific and technological developments in the

Chapter Three 43
world increased the need to learn scientific innovations and read publications and
English became the much preferred foreign language at schools (Demirel 1990).
Demircan (1988) also analyses language education by splitting it into two periods. The
first period continued until the death of Ataturk in 1938. The next period refers to the era
between the 1940s and the present time. For him the following elements contributed to
the developments of teaching foreign languages. Note that some of these elements were
already explained while reading about the political system and background of
educational system of Turkey at the outset of this chapter [see sctions 3.1.1., 3.2.1. and
3.2.2.]. These events can be briefly summarised as follows.
-The closing of religious institutions (tekke and madrasahs) and annexing all the
schools to the MOE in 1924,
-Adopting the secular system to prevent minority schools making Christianity
propaganda at schools,
-Acceptance of Latin letters in 1928,
-The establishment of the Turkish Education Association in 1928, which aimed
to prevent Turkish children from going to foreign schools in Turkey to learn a foreign
language,
-The visit and suggestions of foreign scientists [John Dewey (American) and Dr.
Kuhn (German)],
-University reform movement from the suggestions of Austrian Prof. A. Malche.
-The arrival of Jewish scientists who fled from Nazis Germany. They were
employed at Istanbul University (pp. 96-110).
Demircan (ibid.) goes on to explain some other elements that also contributed to the
development of foreign language teaching in Turkey after the 1940s. Two of these
elements among others are ‘the establishment of language departments from 1965 and
the establishment of language-based high secondary and high school’ (pp. 102-120).
Therefore, we can state that political events of the world influenced the choice of foreign
language teaching in Turkey, as did the reform movement after the establishment of the
Republic in 1923.

Chapter Three 44
3.3.2. The Use of English in Turkey
The teaching of English as a foreign language is compulsory, starts in year 4 of the
primary schools and goes on during students’ undergraduate education at universities.
However, language teaching/learning activities are not only limited to schools. For
instance, the use of ‘advanced’ computers and compact discs (CD) after the 1990s have
played a major role in making English popular among the Turkish people. Although
English is not used as a second language in daily communication, nobody denies its
importance in getting a job, doing business, etc. For English learners in Turkey the main
reason for learning English is to get a job and earn a living. This is because getting a job
at any governmental (state) offices is difficult and not always possible. On the other
hand, private sector organisations [banks, companies dealing with business, trade, social
service, etc.] demand a perfect knowledge of English. These organisations usually prefer
those who speak perfect English and have a master’s degree abroad. So those who want
to learn/improve English either attend private language/tutorial centres or take private
courses in language teachers' own homes. In both cases the process occurs as follows.
Private language centres, apart from schools, are the usual places to learn English in
Turkey. There are a few private language centres in every city centre and their number
usually increases in big cities. Students go to these centres either to pass the exams at
their schools or to prepare themselves for the exam to be held by the HEC in order to
win a place in the language departments of universities. Some students, including adults,
attend these centres to improve the knowledge and practice of English in general. Most
of these adults learn English to use computers and the Internet, to get high status
employment, etc. Some are registered with the Open University.
Another way of learning English is to get private lessons in teachers’ own homes.
Teachers in many fields [Maths, Music, Physics, etc.] teach private lessons in this way.
Giving private courses at home is also my experience and the participant teachers raised
this point. For instance, T1 stated that a one hour private course costs 4, 000, 000 TL
(approximately £13.00 (obs. 11/11/1997). [Note that the currency rates refer to
11/11/1997]. Private lessons given by teachers at their own homes are more expensive
than courses taken at language centres.
Some other reasons to learn English can be stated as follows. First, those people who
want to get promotion in their job learn English. This is especially so for people who

Chapter Three 45
work for the government and private sectors. Besides this, those who want to do
postgraduate study in Turkey have to take publicly held examinations. The first exam
taken by those candidates is the language exam. Those who pass the language exams are
allowed to take science exams in their subject fields. For instance, Ph.D. study in Turkey
is based on taught courses and takes three years. Those who successfully finish the
three-year study have to pass the proficiency exams in languages (English, German, etc.)
before proceeding with writing their thesis. In other words, Ph.D. students in Turkey are
not allowed to write a thesis unless they pass the language exam.
In addition, those who finish their Ph.D. successfully have the right to get promotion
[Assistant Prof.]. Similarly, those who have sufficient publications can apply for
Associate Prof., but the language exam of this promotion is only held in English,
German and French. Briefly, it seems that those who want to get promotion [increase of
salary and social status] must pass the language exam first.
3.3.3. The Place of English in Schools in Turkey
Although French, German and English are taught as foreign languages, the English
language is most commonly taught and preferred in schools. According to recent
changes (MOE 1997) language teaching takes place in the following forms:
3.3.3.1. Normal Language Teaching Programme
Language teaching is compulsory, but it is taught only during language courses. This
sort of programme is mostly seen at state schools. For example, foreign language is
taught 2 hours weekly in years 4 and 5, 3 hours in years 6, 7 and 8 of the primary
schools. Foreign language is taught 4 hours weekly in year 1 of high schools, but it is
optional in years 2 and 3 of these schools.
The following picture indicates a language teaching session that takes place at schools
that apply partial language programme.

Chapter Three 46
3.3.3.2. Half Language Teaching Programme
Some schools run a preparatory year during which students take 24 hour intensive
language courses in writing, reading, grammar, conversation, video, etc. per week. After
this prep year, students learn languages only during language sessions and take 4 to 6
hours of language courses weekly.
3.3.3.3. Language Based Programmes
These schools run a preparatory year to teach a foreign language at a basic level. These
sorts of schools give more emphasis to language teaching because most of the courses
like Science, Mathematics etc. are supposed to be taught in foreign languages (if schools
have sufficient language teachers). The following picture indicates a language teaching
session that takes place at schools that apply language-based programme.

Chapter Three 47
3.3.4. The Topics Taught in Schools
The NC (see 3.2.3) is affecting language teaching, its contents and methodology as it
occurs in other lessons. For example, the MOE (1997) states that the following topics
should be taught in year 4 at primary schools.
Unit One Greeting, Unit Two Describing classroom objects,
Subject Pronouns, Singular/plural,
A song and a game, Teaching a/an,
Possessive adjectives, A song,
Asking/saying the age, Command sentences,
Imperatives,
(MOE (1997, p. 610)
The topics to be taught in years 5, 6, 7 and 8 at primary schools were already identified
by the Ministry. That is, teachers have to use those books which are approved by the
MOE (Demircan 1988, p.152), but the difference is that MOE only identifies the levels
of the books [Starter, Elementary, Intermediate etc.] to be used by language and half-
language based schools. That is, the selection of course books is free on the basis of the
above mentioned levels (T2 14/4/1999), (T7 14/5/1999). In other schools, teachers have
to use those books approved by the MOE.
Language teachers have several complaints about the English textbooks. One of them is
about the use of old books and one teacher (T2) raises this point as follows:
OAL chooses their books, but we [have to] use/teach the books
used by my teacher when I was a student, we cannot use/teach
other books, its first publication is in the 1970s I think...we still
teach the books used 15 or 20 years ago... (int. 17/4/1998)
These teachers also confirm that some of the old text-books written for years 6 and 7 of
primary education were replaced by new ones. However, they state that the cassettes that
accompany the new books are not ready yet and students cannot practise the listening
part of these books. My talk with a head-teacher (BA) indicated that the books to be
used in 1998-99 academic year are: Enjoy, English 4, English 5, Let’s Speak English,
(for year 6), Let’s Speak English (for year 7) and Let’s Speak English (for year 8).
Although the books, their vocabulary, grammatical structure, etc. are already identified
by the MOE, the important point that needs to be considered for me is the necessity of
investigating whether or not pupils in primary schools understand the vocabulary and

Chapter Three 48
grammatical structure of English text-books. The following example illustrates the
importance of this point. According to several studies (Dulay & Burt 1973, Makino
1980, Lee 1981, etc. cited in Cook 1993) L2 learners usually follow a similar order
while learning grammatical morphemes. The order they explored is this;
1- plural “-s” “Books”
2- progressive “-ing” “John going
3- copula “be” “John is here”
4- auxiliary “be” “John is going”
5- articles “The books”
6- irregular past tense “John went”
7- third person “-s” “John likes books”
8- possessive “s”. “John’s book”
(Cook 1993, p.15)
Now we can compare the above list with the list of the MOE and then arrive at a
conclusion. According to the MOE (1997), the following contents (quoted verbatim)
should be taught in year 4 at primary schools English teachers in Turkey.
The Contents and Structures to be Taught in Year Four
Unit One: Greeting, Introducing oneself/someone, Counting, Imperatives,
Unit Two: Describing classroom objects, Asking classroom objects, Teaching
Singular/Plurals, Teaching a/ an,
Unit Three: Asking and saying the colours, Teaching the numbers, Asking telephone
number, Teaching question form (how many), Telling the time,
Unit Four: Identifying family, Teaching Ataturk’s family (apostrophe (‘s), Teaching
Yes/No questions, Teaching Clothes, Teaching Imperatives.
Unit Five: Teaching ‘Whose”, Talking about personal belongings using ‘whose’, Asking
questions with ‘What’, Teaching the days of week...
(MOE 1997-2481, pp.611-612).
It seems that the list posed by the MOE in Turkey does not fit very well with the list
included in Cook’s (1993) book. For instance, it is my language teaching experience that
not only beginners, but also learners at intermediate or upper-intermediate level cannot
use the structure “whose”. In my opinion this structure should not be taught in year 4.
Therefore, I do believe that further studies should be undertaken about:
-How do the pupils in Turkey learn/acquire grammatical structure?
-How do the pupils in Turkey learn/acquire English vocabulary?, etc.?

Chapter Three 49
3.3.5. How Language Courses are Taught
Demircan (1988) explains the development of the methods of language teaching in
Turkey as follows. Before 1920 the GTM and until 1923 the DM was used. From 1923
to the 1940s Reading and Understanding and the GTM were used. In 1944 E. V.
Gatenby tried to accommodate the DM at the English department of Gazi University in
Ankara. As from the 1955 the Georgetown English Language Programme was put into
practice in that department, but as the materials were already prepared on the basis of the
DM, this study did not work well. Between 1955 and 1965 Joe E. Pierce tried the
linguistic method of teaching languages at the same department. After 1965 the ALM
was accepted at this centre and in 1971 some English textbooks [An English Course For
Turks] were prepared on the basis of the ALM. The Ministry accepted these materials as
official textbooks to be used at secondary and high schools as from 1981 (Demircan
1988, pp.147-151). Note that some of the participant teachers [T2, T5, etc.] were
complaining about old books by saying that these books were printed/prepared 15-20
years ago. It is now clear that the books criticised by the teachers were published in the
1970s and are still used in high schools.
The Ministry (1997-2841) not only determines what to teach, but it also makes some
suggestions for how language should be taught. For example, the MOE (ibid.) wants
teachers to use the following means, methods, and techniques while teaching ‘time
expressions’ in English.
a) Means: pictures, flash cards, black board, wall charts, slides,
pocket charts, flannel board,
b) Method and techniques: question and answer, dramatisation,
listening and speaking, role-play and repetition etc. ( MOE 1997, p. 616)
There are two types of English course books for each year (year 1, year 2, etc.) and these
are called the students’ book and the teachers’ book. The latter also offers guidelines for
teachers and explains how the units, topics etc. should be taught step by step. For
instance, The Teachers’ Book -New Hotline (1998), Oxford University Press, used by
T2- suggests teachers to follow the following procedures.
1) Books closed. Ask what happened in unit one...
Students give their responses. Ask follow-up questions.
2) Students open the books and read the questions.
...............................................…………

Chapter Three 50
3) Explain new vocabulary to make students understand the dialogue (p.18)
………………………………….
6) Books closed. Play the tape again.
Divide the class into groups of three (p.19).
(diary, 6/5/1999, p.162)
For the MOE (1997-2481, p.607) ‘direct method’ must be used in year 4 and 5 while
teaching English. This can be criticised in various ways. First, does it mean that all of
the pupils in Turkey like the DM? or is it useful for everybody? What h
appens next if
some pupils do not like the DM? What happens if students do not understand the topic
although T2 follows the above-suggested order? Can teachers choose the appropriate
method or materials? These are a few of the issues that could be addressed.
As a solution, it seems that teachers need to know how to measure the usefulness of
methods and techniques. They must also know how to eliminate what works or does not
work. I believe that those teachers must have some knowledge and experience of
researching to assess the usefulness of methods and techniques. The necessity of having
some basic knowledge and experience is discussed in more detail later, [see 6.5. in
Chapter 6].
The MOE (ibid.) also states that [in Turkish] “yabanci dil dersi ogrenci merkezli olmali”
(p.607), i.e. ‘foreign language lessons must be (pupil + student) centred’. This point is
also challenging. If contents and methodology of an English lesson are identified by the
MOE, can teachers run/teach a learner centred language lesson?
3.3.6. How the English Lessons are Assessed:
The new regulation (MOE ibid.) states that the exams that will be set at the outset (e.g.
in year 4, 5, etc.) must not discourage pupils, but oral and written exams must be used.
Asking further questions as follows pursued this point.
Q-1) do the exams measure how much students learn? or
Q-2) do the exams measure how students learn?
According to the teachers interviewed, exams at schools measure ‘how much of the
topics taught was learnt by students’ (int. 27/5/1998, 28/5/1988). For example, both T5
and T7 stated the requirement of the regulation. An example is:
ET: how do you measure the success of the students?, what does
the regulation say?

Chapter Three 51
T5: it requires at least 2 written exams and two oral exams...
Besides, we apply quizzes as well and these quizzes help us to give
oral exam marks. (int. 13/5/1999)
Other teachers complained about the ease with which students passed. For instance,
three steps must be taken to improve education and training in one head teacher’s view
(BA). One of these is the abolishing of the easy class passing system. This head
teacher’s reply to my question about the legal act was that:
ET; …what does article 48 say?
B;……..it says that if students fail, or have low marks, the act
requires us to consult the parents. When the parents are consulted,
they do not want their children to fail, they want their children to
pass the next year, however, the board of teachers decide that this
pupil, student is poor in lessons, therefore s/he must fail this year.
Since the parents demand that their children pass the class, in this
case will we respect the teachers’ decision or the parents’
decision? If we do not take into account the parents’ request, they
go to court and win, this act (48) has given big rights to parents,
…when the parents go to court, their children pass the class....
(int. 13/5/1999)
These complaints uncovered a host of issues. First of all, one teacher (T2) states that
“...if parents come to the school and tell that ‘I want my child/ren to pass the
examination, his/her teacher has to pass these pupils...” (int. 14/5/1999). Another
teacher (T6) complains about the exam system as follows, “...we have to ask pupils’
parents if they want their children pass or fail...” (int. 14/5/1999).
I believe that although the issue is about the ‘easy class passing system’, the problem is
as much about the whole examination and education system of Turkey. After the head
teacher’s complaint, my question was “ in that case what are the conditions of passing
the exams” (int. 13/5/1999). He (BA) stated that “passing legally depends on getting at
least 2 out of 5 for each lesson in exams...”. In his view although pupils/students get
poor marks from exams, article 48 requires teachers to consult parents before failing
them. Hence the ministry’s this decision can be criticised in many ways.
It seems that one of the issues is parental concern. It also seems that many parents
support the ‘easy class passing system’. Teachers and head teachers say to parents:
Your son/daughter is so poor in lessons, he/she must repeat this
class ”, and then parents say “ no, my son, daughter must pass the
class, I can help him/her by arranging private courses. I spent so

Chapter Three 52
much money for him/her this year, I want my son/daughter to pass
the next year... (int. 13/5/1999)
One of the teachers (T6) reveals parents’ concerns by saying that,“ ...parents never want
their children to fail...” (int. 14/5/1999).
Another issue is about the relationships between the class passing system and the quality
of education. That is, the easy class passing system may reduce the quality of education
[teaching and learning] as T2 commented:
In the past those who could not succeed used to fail... now there is
no such a thing... those pupils can come [pass] to high schools
without learning anything... In this case although these children
finish a high school, they do not know ‘how to read and write’ in
Turkish... ( int. 14/5/1999)
The class passing system seems to affect the motivation of teachers and pupils/students
too. This motivation refers to teaching desire in terms of teachers and it refers to
learning desire in terms of pupils/learners. Teachers who teach at language-based high
school ask usually more questions (about 50 questions) during exams and one of
teachers (T6) complained as follows:
I mark exam papers for hours and hours, sometimes I mark those
papers by laying on the floor,... but there is no fail in classroom...
if parents decide [whom to pass or fail], why is there so much
bureaucracy at schools; oral and written exams, etc.
(int. 14/4/1999)
Consequently, teachers may feel that if parents decide who fails or pass, teachers may
not have much desire to teach, feeling they have lost their credibility. More than this,
many students seem aware of the exam system currently used in schools and this may
cause further problems. This point was raised by T2 as follows. According to T2’s
observation:
Personally, I believe that if the failing system is applied, this will
increase the rate of success because [now] pupils know that
although 8 of their lessons are 1 (poor mark) they can pass from
one year to another... (int. 14/5/1999)
Finally, oral and written exams are used to evaluate English language lessons, but
parents’ decisions also identify who is to pass or fail.

Chapter Three 53
3.3.7. Professional and Non-professional Language Teachers
Language lessons including English are not always taught by language teachers in
Turkey. That is, these lessons are taught by professionals and non-professionals. The
former refers to those teachers who have been trained and graduated from language
teaching departments of universities, but the latter refers to either Science, Geography,
History, Art, etc. teachers who teach English. Non-professionals also include engineers,
lawyers, doctors, etc. who have had no training about ‘how to teach English’, but they
teach English owing to the teacher shortage.
The intention is here not to criticise or patronise those people, but to clarify English
language teaching provision. Besides this, non-professional attempts deserve
appreciation. For instance, the following extract taken from an interview with the head
(BA), running a primary school in the city centre [Ordu], explains the situation clearly.
ET: … do you have sufficient language teachers?
BA: ... we need one more English language teacher at the
moment, we have three qualified teachers now, besides, there are
two teachers who attended basic English courses for seven
months and these course participants teach English as well.
ET: two teachers?
BA: yes, two,
ET: what are their subject areas?
BA: these two are Turkish and Social Sciences teachers,…
(int. 13/5/1999)
The example given is not an extreme case; it is possible to see similar examples at other
schools, in Ministry reports, in the news and newspapers. For instance, Chapter 2
revealed my language learning experience, taught by a non-professional teacher. The
lack of sufficient English language teachers still exists both in rural areas and in the city
centres. An Agricultural engineer who teaches English at one of the primary school at
my village, Ordu, stated;
AC: … I graduated at the Agricultural Engineering Faculty of
Ankara University... I took modules related to pedagogic
formation from the Faculty of Education [ to serve as a teacher].
...now I like teaching, besides, it is really difficult to find a job in
our field, ....
ET: do you know the number of unemployed graduates in your
field?
AC: No, I do not know, but it is about 13, 000, I’m not sure...
(int. 4/5/1999)

Chapter Three 54
To pursue the issue, some interviews were conducted with pupils in that school and one
of the pupils (ST) stated the following views about language teaching;
ET: …is there an English language teacher?
ST: yes,
ET: do you know if she is a qualified teacher...
ST: I know her as .....technical teacher,
ET: well, you are supposed to learn English in year 4, did you
take this (English) lesson last year?
ST: no we did not,
ET: well, then what did you do during English lessons?
ST: we did Turkish instead of English,
ET: did you not take any English lesson last year?
ST: no, we did not, ... (int. 16/5/1999)
Since the village I live in is big, there are two primary schools there. To my surprise
only one teacher (MK) teaches years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the other school. There are 19
pupils in total (diary, 22/4/1999, p.101) and this issue was already explained under
section 3.2.4. The following interview illustrates how he tries to teach English:
ET: … yes, who teaches English lessons?
MK: now, English... I try to teach basic things,
ET: do you yourself teach?
MK: I try to teach something, in most cases, I teach Turkish
during English lessons, but at least I try to teach English one
hour in a week.
ET: yes,
MK: for example, I teach ‘what is your name?, where are you
from?, what are you doing?’ etc. ... but I do not think I’m so
helpful, what I teach is not satisfactory... in fact, this is the task
of English teachers, ... (int. 22/4/1999)
Consequently, it seems that the teaching of English by non-professionals raises the
question about the quality of English language lessons. It also seems that pupils do not
learn basic English at primary schools and this may cause some problems when they
attend secondary education.
One important point concerns the appointment of English language teachers to schools.
This is my observation as being a teacher and researcher in the research context. Those
who graduate from Education Faculties apply for the MOE to serve as teachers. As a
result, the MOE usually gives priority to the language-based high schools in the city
centres while appointing English language teachers. The second priority is for the half-
language based schools, either in city centre or in districts. The third priority is for other

Chapter Three 55
normal primary and high schools in the city centres. The fourth priority is for schools in
districts. And the last priority is the schools in rural areas. For instance, the secondary
school where I finished has been open for 25 years, but no professional English language
teacher has been appointed yet. It was seen in section 3.2.1. that the Constitution and
NEBL stress the importance of ‘equality and equal opportunity in education’ in theory,
but as to practice, it seems there is no equal distribution of English language teachers
throughout the country. This is true for other fields as well. It is almost impossible to see
Art, Music, or Physical Education, Religious Education teachers in village schools.
The following news from the press also verifies the number and need for English
language teachers in Turkey. For instance, Milliyet (29/7/1998) states that the shortage
of teachers in Istanbul is about 10,000. Another newspaper (Zaman 9/11/1998) says that
the MOE needs 10,000 English language teachers, but only 2,600 people applied in
August 1998. In another view (Zaman 26/5/1999) the MOE’s need is about 25,500
teachers in total and 12,500 of them are English language teachers. The total number of
teachers short is 25,000 (Radikal 1/8/2000) and 3,450 of them are English language
teachers (Yeni Safak 27/8/2000). Consequently, it can be claimed that the teaching of
English by non-professionals reduces the quality of language education.
3.4. Remedial Suggestions to Solve Educational Problems
This chapter indicated that many problems such as lack of schools and teachers, double
session teaching, language teaching by non-professionals, top-down decision-making,
among others, existed in the research context. Some of these problems became clear
during the implementation of the SOAR. So I asked some questions to explore potential
solutions to these problematic points. My questions were ‘what needs to be done to
improve schools in terms of education and training? and ‘what needs to be done to
improve school management? To that end the questions aimed:
1- to get teachers’ and head-teachers’ view about ways of improving education, training
and school management,
2- to explore the obstacles to the implementation of AR in Turkey.
This section (3.4.) explains and analyses the first concern. The second one is analysed in
Chapter 8 where the collected data about AR is discussed. The following is an analysis
of these responses. Note that these suggestions are briefly stated because of their
diversity.

Chapter Three 56
3.4.1. Teachers’ and Head teachers’ Suggestions to Improve Education & Training
Some state that the easy class passing system must end. This view was stated by a
teacher and head teacher (T2, 14/5/1999). This exam system seems to have an influence
on basic education and T2 raises this point by saying,“... the training of pupils at
primary schools must be improved...”. Another suggestion to improve education and
training activities was about lack of teaching materials. It was stated as follows:
We need extra teaching materials such as video cassettes, songs,
games..., our students are poor in general culture and we must get
them to read books as a habit... (T2, 14/5/1999)
In T4’s view all schools must be on a single session teaching programme and these
schools must have some sports facilities for pupils (int. 12/5/1999). For T5 it is
necessary “to reduce the number of students in the classroom...”, there must be about 20
pupils for each class, having teaching materials and using computers can improve
education and training (int. 13/5/1999). In addition, T6 states that, “firstly we need
qualified teachers,... once the government appointed engineers, economists, scientists as
teachers...” (int. 14/5/1999). This point is about teaching by non-professionals [see
section 3.3.7.]. The final teacher (T7) stated various views and they are;
The physical conditions of schools must be improved, on a bench 3
or 4 pupils sit together, the roof is dipping, classrooms are
terrible, the central heating does not work, transportation is a
problem. Educational objectives should be kept away from the
political interventions,... political decisions should not affect
educational objectives. If you consider the quality of education,
you need to solve teachers’ monetary problem...
( int. 14/5/1999)
In this context one of the head-teachers [CZ] states the necessity of improving the
physical conditions of schools and classrooms and maintains that “teachers must
participate in Inset activities every year and they must spend extra effort to teach
effectively...”. Consequently, it was seen that teachers’ and head teachers’ suggestions
were diverse and each of them addresses a problematic area of education and training
activities. However, this section does not mean that the above noted teachers and head
teachers stated all the problematic areas of the education system in Turkey today.

Chapter Three 57
3.4.2. Teachers’ and Head Teachers’ Suggestions to Improve School Management
Since these suggestions are diverse, a brief analysis of them is included here to make the
readers aware of them. One of the suggestions stated the importance of single session
(T4, 12/5/1999). In fact, this suggestion could be included in the previous section (see
4.3.1.). Another suggestion is about having a separate health centre for teachers (int.
14/5/1999). As seen, this suggestion is not much about improving the school
management.
The rest of the suggestions are about bureaucratic procedure and maintenance of the
schools. For instance, T2 was not eager to talk about improving school management, but
her further views indicate that bureaucracy is a problematic in schools. Her view is:
I do not know much about it,... but if I want to take my students to
a picnic or a visit, there is much bureaucracy to do... permission
needs to be given by the governor of the city, the LEA, the police
station, head-teacher...because of this paper-work nobody
organises this sort of activity... ( int. 14/5/1999)
Also T5 answered my question about school management briefly by saying, “ firstly it
would be better if the steps of the bureaucracy were reduced...” (int. 13/5/1999). It was
T7, who stated more views about the issue of bureaucracy. In his view;
Teachers cannot do anything about it [management]. Since the
core of education is administrated by the politicians, teachers are
not involved in management, teachers’ hands seem to be tied by
law, head-teachers and deputy head-teachers, teachers have to get
on well with school management ... unless you develop people’s
brains, there is no point in improving physical conditions of
[schools, classrooms]. (int. 14/5/1999)
One of the head-teachers [CZ] stated the necessity of reducing bureaucracy by saying
that “it is useful if things are done or solved locally,... the LEAs should be authorised to
solve educational and training problems...” (int. 12/5/1999). However, another head
teacher’s views [SK] were about centralised system.
If there is no bureaucracy, it is not possible to maintain the public
services, you work not on behalf of yourself, you work on behalf of
the public, so activities need to be documented... that is you need
to prove that you have done public service… (int. 13/5/1999).
The final head teacher [BA] stated the necessity of bureaucratic procedure to some
extent while dealing with central institutions such as the LEA, the governor or the MOE

Chapter Three 58
and maintained that “ ... our biggest problem is to serve like a builder, if the roof dips, I
sort it out, if we ran out of chalk, I provide...” (int. 13/5/1999).
Consequently, it was seen that teachers and head teachers posed some views about
improvement of school management in Turkey. As stated in earlier (see 3.4.1.), this part
(3.4.2.) does not claim that if teachers’ and head-teachers’ suggestions were put into
practice, all the problems of the education system in Turkey would be sorted out. Rather
the aim was to explore the teachers’ and head teachers’ views about the possible
solutions that could be taken into account by other researchers while undertaking a
research project in Turkey. Briefly, I believe that the above suggestions are long away
from posing clear cut ideas to end the educational problems in Turkey.
3.5. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have given an account of the State (Turkey), national educational
system, language teaching policy and practices in schools, and some potential
suggestions to solve the educational problems of the context. It showed that the state
enacted many laws, rules, etc. to preserve its political structure. For instance, although
the state and the NEBL (1739) regard themselves as being democratic, secular and social
(article 2), even fundamental rights and freedoms (article 12), individuals’ freedom of
thought and freedom of opinions (article 25), the right to study and teach freely (article
27), etc. can be restricted by the Constitution and other laws to preserve the current
political and educational system of the state. There are more restrictions than one
experiences in a country like Great Britain (GB).
I also showed that education, training, I T T and Inset activities, national curriculum,
contents of the textbooks, methods of teaching, and language teaching programmes,
among others, are centrally determined. Any learning or teaching at schools is
considered as behaviour change and exams seem to measure psychomotor, cognitive and
affective behaviours. It seems that there is little opportunity to change textbooks,
contents of the books, names of the module taught at language teaching departments, etc.
In this way the HEC inspects all universities and taught modules in any department of
the universities.
In general, it can be seen that centralised policy and practices are dominant in Turkey. In
other words, the political regime of the state identifies all educational and training

Chapter Three 59
activities. The objective of this chapter was to explore relevant factors [elements and
conditions] of the research context that might support or hinder AR studies. One
researcher, for instance Howe (1995), states the following views about this issue:
Action research has long appealed to its link with participatory
democracy as one of its primary theoretical justifications...
(p.347). Goods, along with needs, policies and practices are
negotiated and investigated in collaboration, with democracy and
justice functioning as the overarching ideals. Described here are
the guiding principles of action research (Howe 1995, p. 349).
Remembering the fact that few AR studies exist in Turkey, this means that very few
people know about AR. Since I shall undertake this study in three schools in Ordu, the
following questions, at least, need to be addressed;
- It is necessary to look at the literature of AR to see whether there are views about the
introduction and initiation of AR study in different contexts for the first time. If it does,
these views need to be explored.
- If the literature of AR says nothing about the introduction or initiation of AR, must I
(or researchers) expect volunteer teachers to come to terms with what is required to
initiate AR by themselves?
- Since one of the aims of this study is to improve English language teaching and the
selected topic among others through the use of the AR approach, it is also necessary to
investigate the literature of AR to discover what it says about (foreign/second, etc.)
language teaching in general. The next chapter critically reviews the literature of AR to
these ends.

Chapter Four 60
CHAPTER FOUR
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF AR LITERATURE
The review of literature is conducted by locating, reading,
evaluating, and synthesising reports of research, expert opinion
and all information related to the problem.
(Hopkins 1980, p.130)
Introduction
Action research, reflective practice, action science, action learning, teacher research, etc.
have been widely used terms in educational studies since the 1950s. From then on,
countless AR projects were implemented on Inset, curriculum development, I T T, etc.
We also know that the AR approach has not only been used in educational studies, but it
has also used in other areas such as insurance, prisons, social services administration,
hospitals, community projects, and business, among others (Cohen & Manion 1996).
Notwithstanding these studies, I believe that the literature of AR needs to be revised for
the following reasons. Firstly, the ‘issues’ raised at the end of the previous chapter
remained unanswered. Secondly, as stated in Chapter 1, the AR approach has not been
widely used in Turkey and there are only a few AR studies to date. Similarly, the
teachers interviewed and observed during the FFW and SFW in 1997, as we will see in
Chapter 6, did not seem to have knowledge of AR. For these reasons it seems necessary
to critically review the literature of AR to address the issues highlighted at the end of the
previous chapter. In this review the terms action learning (AL), action science (AS),
reflective practice (RP), teacher research (TR) and action research (AR) are used
interchangeably.
4.1. Contest of Terms
The term AL was produced by Reg Rewans when he experienced some problems in coal
mining after the 2nd
World War. He realised that there was a great need to increase coal
output from coal mines and it was inappropriate to take managers away from the
collieries to train them in the skills of managing. Since mine managers could not learn
from other managers unless they had some understanding of each others’ situation, the
notion of action learning was produced. This notion refers to learning from experience,

Chapter Four 61
sharing experience with others, having feedback from others, putting that advice into
practice and reviewing action and advice with colleagues (Margerison 1994, p.109).
The term AL is based on learning by doing, but it is claimed that “we learn best when
we have a real work (or other) issue to resolve...” (Weinstein 1994, p.36). Its principles
are learning from experience, sharing experience with others, having feedback from
colleagues or advisers, taking and implementing those feedback and reviewing the plans
(Margerison 1994). AL programmes include five elements: the set refers to people, the
projects or tasks refers to work to be done, the progress refers to strategy adopted, set
adviser refers to guide, helper and the duration refers to the period which the project
takes.
Zuberr-Skerrit (1992b, p.214) states that “action learning has been introduced ... as a
basic concept of action research”. She maintains that the assumption AL adopts is
similar to Lewin’s (1952) and Kolb’s (1984) ‘experiential learning’ model, which claims
that “knowledge can be gained from concrete experience or action...” (p.214). For
Zuberr-Skerrit (ibid.) the difference between AR and AL is that; “AR includes AL, but
is more deliberate, systematic and rigorous and is made public” (p.215). In Kember’s
view (2000, p.59) “all AR projects are AL projects, but the converse does not hold true”.
For some researchers such as Argyris & Schon (1991, p.86), Whyte (1991, p.97), and
Argyris (1999, p.433) the term AS is “a form of AR”. For Whyte (1991, p.97) AS
assumes that “beginning to learn new ways of thinking and feeling should precede
embarking on new courses of action”. According to Argyris & Schon (1991, p.86) AS
includes features of AR and participatory AR (PAR), but focuses “on the spontaneous,
tacit theories-in-use that participants bring to practice and research...”. The other features
of AS for Argyris (1982, p.449-470) are; the aim of AS is to develop sound rules about
the functions of peoples and social systems. AS holds “normative views about
alternative ways of living”. All actions ... are based on ‘reasoning’ and people use
various types of ‘reasoning’ in different situations. Their ideas of AS are also understood
from the views they hold about AR.
Argyris & Schon (1991, p.86) and Argyris (1999, p.432) state that AR emerges out of
practitioners’ perceptions within local and practice contexts. AR is bounded by the
boundary of the local context and builds descriptions and theories within those bounded
contexts. Action researchers try to improve practice. The outcome of research is

Chapter Four 62
published in an ordinary language and does not intend to make general statements. In
their view AS is more rigorous, systematic and produces more general rules, whereas
AR is local, small scale research and subordinate to AS.
The term RP seems to be much disputed among researchers and there are two types of it
in the literature, namely; reflection in action (RIA) and reflection on action (ROA)
(Schon 1983, 1987). Schon (1983) states that practice problems are constructed from the
problems of problematic situations in the real world. He also says that “when someone
reflects in action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context” (p.68). He (ibid.)
maintains that “our examples suggest that practitioners do frequently think about what
they are doing while doing it” (p.311). Considered in terms of education, teaching is not
seen as routine or pre-decided activities, but as the process of thinking, monitoring,
adapting one’s behaviour and so forth while acting in contexts.
Schon (1983, p.277) further states that “even if RIA is feasible, however”... “these
arguments admit the possibility of reflecting on action...” (p.278). In this view he means
that “we may reflect on action, thinking back on what we have done in order to discover
...” (p.26). Although RIA and ROA are two different terms, both place an emphasis on
‘process’ (p.31)’. ROA takes place in education as follows; for instance, teachers may
reanalyse how they taught, why they used particular methods or possible solutions to
problems they experienced after lessons or later. In this way they become researchers.
Developing Donald Schon’s ideas (1983, 1987), Elliott (1991) maintains that Schon is
describing ‘reflective practice’, but I call it ‘action research’. He (ibid.) argues that
educational AR in the UK emerged 20 years earlier than Schon’s books. Besides this,
Gore (1987, p.33) states that “the notion of reflective teaching can be traced to Dewey
(1904, 1933)...”. As a result, the last two references tend to suggest that the term RP is
not new and RP and AR can be considered as the same.
Hitchcock & Hughes (1995) state that Stenhouse coined the term ‘teachers as
researchers’ in his rejection of the behavioural objectives model of curriculum study and
wanted teachers to become involved in a process model of curriculum innovation. Also
Kemmis (1985, p.37) states that both Stenhouse and Elliott popularised the notion of TR
in the UK through the Humanities Curriculum (HCP) and Ford Teaching Projects (FTP).
In the former teachers discussed controversial issues (war, race, sex, etc.) with
adolescents at schools. In the latter teachers used an inquiry/discovery approach to

Chapter Four 63
teaching and learning. Briefly, when teachers undertake AR studies at schools, they then
become researchers and this process is called practitioner research.
Hence it seems that the terms TR and AR are different labels for the same thing in
education. However, it does not mean that only teachers undertake AR studies at
schools, but also academics or external researchers can employ AR studies in schools.
Having introducing the terms AL, AS, RP, TR and AR, I now focus my attention to the
notion of AR and its sub-headings.
4.2. Origin of Action Research
It seems that many claims exist about the origin of AR in the literature. One possible
source is Gestalt psychology because Kurt Lewin, as a student of Wertheimer, stated the
necessity of combining ‘theory and reality’ in a published article7
in Germany in 1926
(Allport 1948xv)8
& (Hill 1980, p.125). Zuber-Skerritt (1992b, p.90) states that Lewin,
produced field theory, experiential phenomenology and AR, influenced by the German
tradition of Gestalt psychology which refers to an organised configuration or pattern of
experiences or acts.
Another possible source is Collier’s activities and writings during the period 1933-1945.
Collier, as a Commissioner of Indian affairs, “stressed the importance of social planning,
demanded much research and used the term action research” Corey (1953, p.7), Kemmis
(1985, p.36), Ebbutt (1985, p.145), Wallace (1987, p.99), McKernan (1991, p.8), Watt &
Watt (1993, p.36) among others. In this view Collier published a paper in 1945 about
Indian Affairs (Kemmis 1988, p.30)9
.
The other possible source of AR is Kurt Lewin himself for some other researchers
Allport (1948, p.xii), Kelly (1985, p.129), Bryant (1986, p.107), Kemmis & McTaggart
(1988, p.6), Oja & Samulyan (1989, p.2), Carr & Kemmis (1990, p.162), Adelman
(1993, p.7), McNiff (1995, p.22), Hopkins (1996, p.45), Zuber-Skerritt (1992a, p.11),
Zuber-Skerritt (1992b, p.89) Hollingsworth (1997, p.247) and others. Lewin’s model of
AR can be encapsulated as follows:
7
- The name of the article: Vorsats, Wille and Bedurfnis, Berlin: Lulius Springer.
8
- This person wrote the ‘introduction’ of the Lewin’s book (1948).
9
- ‘U.S. Indian administration as a laboratory of ethnic relations’.

Chapter Four 64
The first step is to examine the idea, revise the overall plan and
make a decision. The next step is devoted to the execution of the
first step. The third step is fact finding and reconnaissance
which consists of four functions, evaluation, conceptualisation,
planning the next step and make changes if needed....
(Lewin 1948, p.207)
Lewin, interested in ‘motivation, personality and social psychology’ (Hill 1980, p.125),
states that leadership determines the group atmosphere and solutions of social conflicts
depend on democratic leaders (Allport 1948, p.xi). Lewin also analysed “coloured
people” (Ebbutt 1985, p.145) and “disadvantaged peoples” (Adelman 1993, p.8) social
and settlement problems and tried to find evidence linking social theories and social
actions in places where they live.
However, Gunz (1996, p.145) states that Moreno is usually ignored in the claims about
the origin of AR although he was a pioneer of AR. Gunz continues that:
Lewin’s scholars, R. Lippit, K. Benne, L. Bradford, A. Bavelas
and A. Zander, were at the same time Moreno’s students whom
he acquainted with the practice and past of working with groups.
Lippit demonstrated that Lewin was engaged later and after
Moreno with the idea of intervention in order to change social
systems. (Marrow 1978, p.107 in Gunz 1996)
Gunz (ibid.) maintains that if we accept Moreno as the founder of AR, we have to accept
AR as one part of sociology dealing with the integration and participation of people in
the process of social change. Gunz also reveals that Moreno’s and Lewin’s models are
different from each other. The former refers to “an approach rooted in action theory to
mix, or integrate theory, research and practice”, whereas the latter refers to “change
initiated by externals, the researched should co-operate, but they have inferior and
dependent relations to investigators” (p.146). As a result, although AR seems to have
many roots, important figures state that Lewin was the originator of the AR approach
[see Kemmis (1988, p.25), Sanford (1988, p.127), Elliott (1985, p.242), Elliott (1988,
p.163) among others].
Researchers state that Corey (1953) used the term AR in education for the first time in
America [e.g. Hopkins (1996, p.46), Lomax (1991, p.7), McNiff (1995, p.19)] and since
then the term AR has been one of the much used and referred terms in education. In
McNiff’s view Carr & Kemmis produced the term ‘educational AR’ (EAR) in 1986 and

Chapter Four 65
then this term has been used as an umbrella term in educational studies (p.20). After
Corey’s work in education, other researchers such as Ebbutt (1985), Kemmis &
McTaggart (1988), Elliott (1991), McKernan (1991, Altrichter et al. (1993), Wallace
(1998) and others have developed their models and theories of AR.
AR studies in the UK “emerged as an aspect of the school-based curriculum reforms in
the Secondary Modern Schools in the 1960s” (Elliott 1991, p.6). These studies were
based on teachers’ actual classroom practices rather than abstract curriculum theories. So
teachers were seen as being active knowledge producers rather than passive imitators or
users of knowledge produced by others.
AR studies went into a decline in the 1950s, but during 1960s governments provided
large amounts of money for AR projects in education, health, housing etc., and AR
studies still continue in the UK (Adelman 1993). The Schools Council also encouraged
the development of AR as a strategy for teachers to improve teacher curriculum practice
(Wallace 1987, p.104). Kemmis states that (1985, p.37) great motivation for the revival
of AR came from the FTP and the establishment of the CARN bulletin. Kemmis (1997,
p.176), in another article, states that both the HCP, FTP and the ideas of the Frankfurt
School have contributed to the development of EAR. Briefly, many AR studies were
undertaken as from the 1970s and some of them are available in Stenhouse (1980).
One of these AR studies was the HCP project. This study, supported by the Schools
Council and directed by MacDonald (1967-72), aimed at “developing adolescent
students’ understanding of controversial value issues (war, society, race, sex, family,
poverty etc.)” (Elliott & Adelman 1973, p.8). The teachers involved in the project were
expected to teach ‘those issues’ with neutrality and in the discussion form by exploring
diverse views (Aston 1980). It was found that the teachers who received training and
support “tended to bring about results which were not paralleled among ‘untrained HCP
teachers’ and ‘non HCP teachers’ samples” (Elliott & Adelman 1973, p.8).
They maintain that the FTP was based on the four implications suggested by the HCP
evaluators. These are; a) the teaching strategies gave independence and autonomy to
pupils and are not responsible for a decline in educational standards as argued by the
‘Black Paper’ (p.8), b) the trained teachers usually adhered to project aims, but
generally did not consider classroom process (p.9), c) although the project aimed to
have open discussion and explore various views, the teachers still used an authoritative

Chapter Four 66
approach (p.9), d) Inset run at the outset of the project may narrow the gap between
aspiration and realisation (Elliott & Adelman 1973, p. 8-9).
The other was the FTP project. This study was directed by Elliott (1973-75) and
involved 40 teachers and 12 schools. “The aspiration was to explore the possibility of
teachers developing some professional knowledge through inquiry/discovery methods in
their classrooms” (Elliott 1991, p.29). Like the HCP, the FTP also had four objectives,
namely, a) help teachers’ use of inquiry/discovery method and reduce the gap between
attempt and achievement, b) to help teachers use an AR approach for classroom
problems, c) to support classroom AR approaches while using the inquiry/discovery
method and d) to ensure that the teachers’ use of AR study protects and fosters
autonomy (Elliott & Adelman 1973, p. 10-19).
As a result, teachers developed more reflective practices and pedagogical theories than
those of the HCP. In addition, the central team produced a range of h
ypotheses about
facilitation strategies and their effects on teachers’ capacities for self reflection (Elliott
1991, p.35).
4.3. Definition of Action Research
The question ‘what is AR?’ is not easily answered in that AR has a long history and a
rich literature. After reviewing some of the literature, I began to write notes in my diary
about my initial ideas of AR. Some of these ideas were about single/collaborative
research (diary 13/7/1997, p.4), a better model of AR (diary 25/7/1997, p.7), the features
of AR ( diary 20/8/1997, p.12), pilot study in AR studies (diary 9/9/1997, p.13) among
others. As my literature review went on, I kept writing notes about my views of AR. In
this respect one of these notes (diary 2/1/1998, p.22) indicates my effort to produce a
specific definition of AR to be used in education rather than having a broad definition of
AR to be used in different areas (nursing, policing, etc.).
At the outset of my literature review I was reading all available material on AR such as
Elliott (1991), Car & Kemmis (1990), Altrichter et al. (1993), etc. After several months I
realised that I needed to do some observations about AR by comparing one definition,
model, etc. with others while reviewing the literature. I felt it necessary to analyse and
reduce previous definitions, objectives, models, etc. of AR to a manageable number.
Eventually two groups of definitions appeared after finishing this analysis. I took the use

Chapter Four 67
of the word ‘teacher (s)’ as a criterion in those definitions while putting these definitions
into groups. This is because, as I will note later on, some state that teachers themselves
must undertake AR studies in schools. As a result, the first group includes the word
‘teacher’ in their definitions.
Those in the first group are Corey (1953, p.6), Stenhouse (1985, p.142), Stenhouse 1985,
p.57), O’Hanlon (1992, p.204), McNiff (1995, p.47), Hopkins (1996, p.35), Ebbutt
(1985, p.147), Nunan (1989, p.97), Hammersley (1993, p.440), Hustler et al. (1996,
p.11), Clark (1997, p.17), Covell (1987, p.17), Zuber-Skerritt (1992a, p.88) Hitchcox &
Hughes (1995, p.26), Wallat et al. (1982, p.147), Hollingsworth (1997, p.247), Somekh
(1989, p.175), Sanger (1990, p.174), McBride (1995, p.24) and others. For example,
Stenhouse (1985, p.57), after describing the objectives of the HCP and FTP, states that
“now it is the teacher’s responsibility to decide and hold himself accountable for the
educational process in his classroom”.
In the second group of definitions the researchers offer a general definition of AR. They
do not include the word ‘teacher’ in those definitions, but they further state that teachers
should undertake AR. Some of the other researchers in the second group are Rapoport
(1970, p.449), Carr & Kemmis (1990, p.162), Kemmis (1985, p.35), Kemmis (1997,
p.174), McNiff et al. (1996, p.8) among others. I personally believe that the exclusion of
the word ‘teachers’ is not a disadvantage. Yet at this point the questions arises as to how
a broad definition or framework (model of AR) can be useful for teachers if we want
them to be researchers in their schools or classrooms, as stated by Altrichter et al.
(1993), Hopkins (1996) and others.
That is, if we explain the step-by-step procedures clearly in terms of teachers, they shall
know their tasks and use that procedure as a guideline while undertaking an AR study.
This new definition may state minimum requirements from the initiation of the study to
the end point. If teachers happen to know those procedures simply, I believe that they
can initiate and conduct AR studies by themselves without getting help, guidance, etc.
from other professional researchers or academics serving at the universities. Eventually
it seems that offering a broad definition or explanation may not be much help for
teachers. It may be better to narrow down the scope of AR that will be undertaken by
teachers at schools and in their classrooms.

Chapter Four 68
Another reason for producing a specific AR definition in terms of teachers comes from
my actual AR experience in Turkey. My position in this research can be named as being
an ‘external researcher’ ‘facilitator’ or a ‘critical friend’ Elliott (1991), Lynton et al.
(1988). I entered classrooms during the SFW and did 31 classroom observations in
1997. In addition, I observed classrooms in which language teachers implemented
agreed action plans. In total I observed those classrooms about 20 times in 1998 and
1999 while implementing the 1st
and 2nd
cycles of SOAR in Turkey.
As a result, I concluded that teachers themselves must undertake AR in schools or in
classrooms. I’m aware that researchers in the following part have already stated this
view. For instance, McCutcheon (1981, pp.187-88) says that teachers’ daily presence in
schools gives them good access to students, school life, and their own lessons and
enables them to undertake long and detailed studies. On the other hand, outsiders’
research in the classrooms for only a few hours, or the use of tests once or twice may
lead to the collection of only limited data. He (ibid.) also states that collecting limited
data and finishing the research in a short time may cause teachers to consider that AR
consists of short activities like getting just a snapshot of the classroom and pupils. In this
context, Elliott (1988) explains this point as follows:
There is a sense in which valid understandings of educational
practices can be developed by insiders. There is no outsider
standpoint from which one can impartially comprehend the
meanings insiders attribute to their practice (p.162). ...teachers-
based AR projects ... usually have been led by outsider-
academics. Is this not inconsistent with the idea that action
research is extensively an insider activity.
(Elliott 1988, p. 164)
Another reason for stressing this issue is that teachers interviewed and observed during
the FFW and SFW had no ‘pre-knowledge of AR’. I personally did not expect those
teachers to embark on an AR study by themselves at that time. As stated at the outset of
this chapter, one of the objectives of reviewing the literature was to explore views about
the ‘introduction and initiation’ of AR in various contexts (for the first time). This
review of the literature indicated that the references included in this chapter did not state
the necessity of introducing the notion of AR to new context or the necessity of making
the participant teachers aware of AR before commencing AR studies there. Only a few
academics such as Elliott (1976), Elliott (1985, p.259-60), Kemmis (1985, p.40) state
views about the preparation and facilitation of AR studies at schools. For instance,

Chapter Four 69
Elliott (1985) states the necessity of involving teachers’ views while identifying the
starting point.
As a result I saw that preparing the participant teachers in my AR study was a necessary
task among others before actually initiating the study. Accordingly, I have sought to
ensure that the AR model and definition used in this study should serve my research
objectives and state the necessity of knowing what AR is. As a result, I worded
(hesitatingly) my own definition of AR by including the word ‘teachers’ in that
definition. This attempt ended up as follows:
Educational AR is a social study undertaken by teachers (alone
or together) who are equipped with the knowledge of AR and
know its objectives, stages, standards, criteria, methods of data
collection and analysis, reflection, production and publication of
reports. (diary, 15/12/1997, p. 20)
I sometimes criticised and changed my ideas about this definition and kept developing
my ideas in my research diary. Here is a recent definition of AR:
AR in education must be undertaken by job holders. By job
holders I mean those who serve in education. Now, I do not
necessarily mean that teachers must undertake AR. It can be
undertaken by teachers, head-teachers, deputy heads, the LEA
etc. The important point is that AR must be undertaken by
anybody into his/her task, work, job etc. For example, an AR
study must not be undertaken by head-teachers about teaching if
those heads are not actually teaching in classrooms. Similarly,
an AR study must not be undertaken by teachers about school
management if teachers do not serve as heads or deputy heads.
Hence I replaced my previous definition of teacher by job-
holder. However, I still hold the same ideas that those action
researchers must know the stated requirements, mentioned in my
previous definition. (diary, 29/12/1999 p. 183)
This new understanding of AR seems to challenge the distinction between FOAR and
SOAR (Elliott 1989, p.2), (1991, p.31), (Hollingsworth 1997, p.248), but I had no such
an intention. The former refers to AR study undertaken by somebody himself or herself
and there is no external help, or guidance, whereas the latter refers to AR study
undertaken into others’ AR study and external help is possible. SOAR has been featured
in the FTP, HCP and my actual AR study with the participant teachers.

Chapter Four 70
McNiff et al. (1996, p.17) state that “... AR should be about your action, not the action of
others”. They maintain that “...the focus of inquiry is mainly you, you are aiming to
bring about change in yourself” (p.42). Although McNiff et al.’s and my own definitions
of AR seem to be challenging the SOAR, needless to say that, I have no intention to
deny the importance and necessity of SOAR when needed. For instance, my study had to
follow a SOAR process while investigating the specific objective of the study (the 4th
research question). This is because the participant teachers [English] were unaware of
AR and they were given external help and guidance while collecting data, analysing
data, etc. Besides this, teachers are primarily responsible for teaching English at schools.
Hence it was assumed that they could apply action plans while teaching English.
In fact, my actual AR study, as stated in Chapter 1, can be seen in many ways. One of
which is an AR in AR (Stuart 1987), another one is an AR on AR (Marchel & Gaddis
1998), and the other one is a mixture of the FOAR and SOAR because SOAR was
embedded in the FOAR. As stated earlier, I myself investigated the 1st
, 2nd
, 3rd
, 5th
, and
6th
research questions, but the 4th
research question was investigated by the participant
teachers and myself together. It was also stated these five questions formed my FOAR
and the investigation of the 4th
research question with the teachers formed my SAOR.
At the outset of the study in 1997 I took every responsibility to initiate the study, to
prepare materials, to arrange meetings for choosing a topic, etc. The reason for doing all
these activities mainly derived from those teachers’ lack of knowledge of AR. That is,
the teachers who participated in my study were not primarily responsible for collecting
and analysing data, producing case studies by themselves as in the TIQL project10
(Elliott 1991). However, in 1998 and 1999 I expected those teachers to involve
themselves in the study more consciously, carry out more tasks relating to my SOAR.
For instance, we collected and analysed data, produced action plans together, etc. The
only difference was that I was observing classrooms while teachers were teaching
English and using action plans.
Although I undertook a SOAR in my study too, I hold the view that we cannot put
ourselves into somebody else’s shoes or vice-versa. This point supports the need for
FOAR and can be clarified by another example from higher education as follows.
10
- TIQL refers to Teacher-Pupil Interaction and the Quality of Learning.

Chapter Four 71
Zuberr-Skerritt (1992b, p.116), in answering the question who should undertake AR at
higher education institutions? states that “higher education curricula are best carried out
by the academics themselves on the basis of their own AR,...”. This suggests that those
who serve in any institution are the right people to undertake AR study in those places. It
follows that teachers, (job-holders) in my definition, are more context-wise people to
undertake and evaluate AR studies in schools, but they must have pre-knowledge of AR
in order to undertake AR studies.
4.4. Objectives of AR Studies
I assumed that eliciting views about the objectives of AR from different sources in the
literature would give me [us] a general idea and help me [us] to understand the nature of
AR studies. There are two groups of views about the objectives of AR.
Objectives as seen by those in the first group deal with current and instant problematic
situations or practical problems. Those in the second group stress the necessity of
improvement of practice and problems by bringing about changes. It is not claimed that
the two groups are entirely discrete, but this is a useful classification. Here is an
explication;
4.4.1. The Views in the 1st
Group
The views in the first group indicate the importance of dealing with present (current,
instant) situations and practical problems, (issues, questions). Rapoport (1970, p.444),
for instance, states that AR provides practical solutions to urgent problematic situations
for people and the goals of social science. Kemmis (1985) defines the objectives of AR
in terms of goals and actions in education and states that:
The objectives of EAR are educational practices... Practice... is
informed, committed action: praxis. Practice is not to be
understood as mere behaviour, but as strategic action undertaken
with commitment in response to a present, immediate and
problematic action context. (Kemmis 1985, p.38)
In Corey’s view (1988, p.63) action researchers must deal with “...the improvement of
educational practice in which he is engaging”. Grundy & Kemmis (1988, p.322) make
the point by saying that the aims of AR are “to improve and to involve”. They further
explain that these aims can be undertaken in there areas as follows:

Chapter Four 72
- the improvement of a practice,
- the improvement (or professional development) of the
understanding of the practice by its practitioners,
- the improvement of the situation in which the practice takes
place. (Grundy & Kemmis (1988, p. 322)
In addition, Nunan’s (1989, p.3) views are that, AR focuses on the “immediate interests
and concerns of classroom teachers,... sharpens teachers’ critical awareness,... helps
teachers with better understanding”. Moreover, McKernan (1991, p.3), explaining AR
and curriculum development, states “the aim of AR is to solve the immediate and
pressing day to day problems of practitioners”. Furthermore, Charles (1995, p.229)
reveals that the aim of AR is not to make generalisations and that AR emerges from
contexts or situations in which there is a strong need. Cohen & Manion (1996, p.188)
make the same point by saying that AR deals with problems “diagnosed in specific
situations”. They continue, “AR is appropriate whenever specific knowledge is required
for a specific problem in a specific situation” (p.194). In general, the above mentioned
references tend to state that AR aims to solve current, immediate, existing problems in
practical situations.
4.4.2. The Views in the 2nd
Group
The views in the second group are about improvement by bringing about change. For
example, Elliott (1980, p.36) and Brock-Utne (1980, p.15) state that AR increases our
understanding about classroom and school situations and seeks more answers for
practical and educational problems. Here the reasons for increasing our understanding
and pursuing further answers are to see if any progress has taken place in practice or not.
Mcniff et al. (1996, p.2) also reveal that “AR ... helps practitioners to improve their
professional practice in every type of workplace”. In addition, Carr & Kemmis (1990,
p.169) state that AR aims at “the improvement of practice, situation and
understanding...”. Moreover, Elliott (1991, p.49), in enumerating features of AR, states
that “the fundamental aim of AR is to improve practice rather than produce
knowledge...”.
Elliott (ibid.) also states that production of knowledge is less important than
improvement of practice. He maintains “AR improves practice by developing the
practitioner’s capacity” (p.52). In his view the dilemma of theory-practice issues is
solved through AR studies. Improvement of practice is expected through the use of

Chapter Four 73
action plans, objectives of research, or in situations. Furthermore, Zuber-Skerritt (1992a,
p.15) makes the same point as follows; the aims are “improvement of AR, the
improvement of the understanding of practice,... the improvement of the situation...”.
McLean (1995, p.3) supports the idea of improvement and states that “AR is... a process
of determining what works best”.
As a conclusion, we read that the objectives of AR studies are to deal with current,
instant issues, problems, etc. It also deals with practical and feasible situations.
Improving situations, solving problems means bringing about change in the situations
and problems. Briefly, it seems that these objectives are interrelated, not discrete actions.
Although I agree with the above-mentioned ideas about the objectives of AR, it seems
that the objectives in AR studies are identified at two levels. I can explain this point with
an example as follows; a common procedure in any AR study is [see 4.7.]:
-We may have a general statement, issue, interest or problem at the very outset,
-Then we collect data about that statement, issue, analyse it and produce action plans,
-Then we implement those action plans, and reflect on them and re-plan the next cycle.
The aims of action researchers, as mentioned above, may be improvement of practice or
solutions to immediate and current problems. No matter what their concerns in doing AR
are, the identification of objectives takes place as follows: At the first level the
objective(s) of AR is to identify the focus of the research as statement, interest, or
problem at the very beginning of the study. These objectives are usually more general.
For example, in my SOAR study in Turkey, participant teachers and I agreed that ‘we
should study the improvement of English vocabulary teaching’. This general topic was
chosen in a meeting that took place on 17/4/1998. After that we collected data, analysed
it and produced action plans from the data. One of those action plans, for example, was
that ‘pupils learn well if words are drawn or demonstrated’. This action plan is more
specific. [see Chapter 6 to review action plans ].
At the second level action researchers implement the produced and agreed action plans.
That is, action researchers try to put action plans into practice as much as possible.
Hence in my view, spending some effort, energy etc. in order to achieve the second level
of objectives seems to be more important than identifying the first level of objectives.
However, one can claim that reflecting, monitoring, or data analysis are also objectives

Chapter Four 74
of AR. This claim is true and I do not underestimate monitoring or other procedures. We
know that the aim of undertaking an AR study is to achieve research objectives and
cause changes. So achieving outcomes or making changes depends on a successful
implementation of action plans.
Briefly, it seems to me that there are two levels of objectives in AR studies. The
objectives identified at the beginning of the study are more general, whereas the
objectives produced after collecting data are more specific. However, it seems that these
levels are usually applied regardless of making distinctions among the chosen topics or
above-mentioned objectives.
4.5. The Starting Point of AR
The views about the starting point of an AR study are diverse and this diversity has
become a discussion point among researchers. For example, Kemmis & McTaggart
(1988) state that researchers have no obligation to study/choose a problem. Instead they
can investigate a general concern. Elliott (1991, p.69) states that one can start the AR
study with a general idea. In addition, Altrichter et al. (1993, p.35) contend that
“interests, problems or unclear points” can be a focus for teachers. Moreover, McNiff
(1995, p.47-57) states that teachers’ interests and objectives can be the starting point.
Furthermore, Cohen & Manion (1996, p.198) point out that “identification, evaluation
and formulation of the problem” are the first thing to be carried out in AR studies.
The usual starting point of AR study for some researchers is a general statement (e.g.
Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, Elliott 1991). However, some others clearly state that
teachers at schools must undertake AR (e.g. Altrichter et al. 1993, McNiff 1995). Hence
it seems that the starting point of AR is important and must be clarified for teachers and
external researchers. There are several reasons for doing so.
First, the idea of teachers as researchers raises questions to be answered. That is, if
teachers are to be researchers, then some of the questions can be stated as follows:
- What must be the staring point for teachers in an AR study?
- Who must identify the topic, problem, etc. to be studied?
- Must they choose the issues/problems emerging from their classrooms?
- Must they follow bureaucratic regulations posed by others?

Chapter Four 75
Briefly, it seems that the question of identifying teachers’ priorities whilst undertaking
AR has not been frequently mentioned in the literature. It also seems that only a couple
of researchers explain this point. For example, Elliott (1985) in explaining the
facilitating rules of AR studies in schools reveals the following views:
The contradiction occurs when an external facilitator defines a
specific problem as the focus, gets the funding, and then attempts
to negotiate that focus with a group of teachers (p. 247)... Allow
teachers to define the specific problems and issues for
investigation..., Help teachers to clarify their pedagogic aim by
focusing attention on their practice...
(Elliott 1985, p.259)
Taba & Noel (1988) state the necessity of identification of the starting point of AR
studies by teachers. They further state that “...often teachers cannot state their concerns
and the conditions that surround them fully enough” (p.67). In this case they state the
necessity of giving external help to those teachers. They also state that the process of
identifying a focus must reveal “...the teachers’ situation and its limitations”. Their
views about the identifying focus can be summarised as follows:
i) the focus need to fulfil certain criteria,
ii) the focus must be important to the person posing it,
iii) the focus must be significant in terms of curriculum development
iv) the focus must be manageable.
v) the focus must reveal/predict causes and factors of problems.
(Taba & Noel 1988, p. 68)
On the other hand, Oja & Smulyan (1989, p.199) draw our attention by asking, whose
issues should be pursued? They maintain that, “if externally defined ideas should remain
the focus”, then teachers lose their opportunity to explore their own interest and
concerns. For that reason, the question of external researchers’ priorities must also be
clearly stated in AR studies. It is highly possible that external researchers will have a
pre-decided agenda for the research. This point can be explained as follows:
- External researchers may want to discover how a theory/programme works at a specific
school, classrooms, etc. by employing an AR study.
- They may want to explore the gap between theory and practice.
- Or they may want to carry out [impose] their concerns, etc.

Chapter Four 76
As an answer to these questions, for example, Kelly (1985, p.130) states that “the
teacher’s perspective is central and s/he defines the problem as s/he sees it”. Kelly
maintains that “the idea for the GIST11
project came from outside the schools and our
first task was to convince teachers...” (p.135). In this context McBride (1995, p.27)
states that “for those new to AR this step can be the most difficult”.
Although I was a novice action researcher, I had some difficulty not in identifying the
topic, but in getting teachers together to have a meeting in order to identify a topic
(interest, problem, etc.) because of double session teaching at schools. I will return to
this issue in Chapter 6.
For example, during my FFW in Turkey in 1997, teachers’ and learners’ views about
‘problematic issues in English’ were elicited. Some of them, for example, were ‘the
wrong use of -s, wrong use of tenses, do, does, phrasal verbs, vocabulary teaching, word
order, lack of motivation among others [see appendices D & E]. After producing these
points as a report, I gave one copy of it to each teacher before returning to Britain. When
teachers and I had a meeting on 17/04/1998, we discussed these problematic points for
two hours and chose a topic-vocabulary teaching- to study during this AR project.
In general, although I accept the idea that teachers themselves must identify their
concerns in AR studies, I also realised a problematic relationship between teachers’
interests and the idea of whole school development in AR studies. It is argued that AR
studies must see teacher and whole school development as unique [Hopkins (1996,
p.220), Day (1996, p.208), Somekh (1989, p.163)], among others.
I agree with the idea of whole school development in general, but this idea may not be
necessary or feasible all the time in AR studies. This point can be exemplified as
follows: imagine that a Science teacher has a problem in his/her classroom at a school
while teaching the law of gravity, or an Art teacher has problems with bullying students
at a high school. In these cases, the question arises as to how that Science or Art teacher
involves all other teachers (Geography, History, Language etc.) to make a contribution
to whole school development. The other point that needs attention is, is it necessary for
that Science or Art teacher to involve the rest of the teachers at his/her school in order to
solve the above-mentioned problems? This point has been written in my research diary:
11
Girls into Science and Technology Project.

Chapter Four 77
It is claimed that AR studies must aim at improving whole school
development. But, it seems that a whole school approach depends
on the topic selection. By this I mean that if the topic is more
general as happened in the FTP or HCP, it then seems that the AR
study can aim at whole school and teacher development.
However, if the selected topic is specific to a pupil or a subject
field such as Science, History, Music etc. and emerge out of a
teacher’s classroom practice, there is no need to make any attempt
to improve the whole school or to involve teachers from other
subject areas. (diary, 1/8/1997, p.8)
Consequently, it seems that teachers must be free to choose or not to choose a focus to
study. It also seems that AR results [positive or negative] are not very reliable if teachers
are forced to take part in a study owing to bureaucratic procedures.
4.6. Types of Action Research
Researchers may undertake AR in different ways depending on the objectives adopted.
The selected topic, research or issue questions, resources and the context in which AR
will take place generally determine the choice of AR. Hence various forms of AR have
been suggested in the literature depending on those conditions. This type of
classification poses new definitions for AR, apart from the ones given under the title
objectives of AR [see section 4.4.]. It seems that categorising AR into groups is not new,
but starts with “Lewin and his workers” (Adelman 1993, p.13). Then they defined four
types of AR and Chein et al. (1988, pp. 57-62) explain this classification as follows.
4.6.1. Diagnostic AR
This AR is usually about identifying problems and producing remedial solutions to those
problems. The research agency steps into an already existing problematic situation by an
invitation. After diagnosing the situation, they may suggest some advice, but this type of
AR does not always lead to action.
4.6.2. Participant AR
Chein et al. (ibid.) state that this type of AR grew out of the weakness of the previous
model. Hence this states that those involved must also be included during research
process and while deciding action plans. They state that PAR may yield some facts
about a particular community rather than general principles for other communities. They
finally state that PAR is a special kind of action technique rather than a special kind of
research.

Chapter Four 78
4.6.3. Empirical AR
The main idea behind this AR is that it implements action plans and keeps a record of
what outcome is achieved. So keeping regular notes about the research process and
accumulating experience day by day is the core of the research. Researchers work in
small groups and identify the technique they will use. They also produce hypotheses that
might lead to change in the behaviours or attitudes of the subject community. At the end
researchers keep recording whether hypotheses are verified or refuted. They also record
the weakness of the research technique used. Conclusions are drawn from either a single
experience or from experience with several groups.
4.6.4. Experimental AR
This type of AR employs experimental and control groups and aims to produce some
knowledge about the effectiveness of various action techniques. The main aim is to find
out which action technique(s) work best. Chein et al. (ibid.) conclude that “all AR
requires that measurement techniques be constructed and applied with community
relations continually in mind” (p.61).
4.6.5. Other Types of AR
A number of researchers classify various types of AR in the literature. Some of them can
be stated as follows. For instance Kelly (1985) explains three types of AR namely;
“experimental social administration, teacher research model and simultaneous
integrated” AR (p.129). An example of the experimental AR is the EPA12
project that
aimed to raise educational standards, to lift teacher morale, to link home and school and
assist communities in developing a sense of responsibility (Midwinter 1972, p.11). This
project covered some small, isolated, economically undeveloped, mining towns around
Liverpool, London and Birmingham, but the Plowden Committee outside the school
system identified the ends and means of research. The second one is the TR model that
refers to practitioner-based research. In fact, “Stenhouse is credited with developing...”
this model of AR (Hollingsworth 1997, p.248). While explaining types of case studies,
Stenhouse (1985, p.646) also includes the ‘teacher as researcher’ model in his article.
Teachers deal with educational practices and do not start with an hypothesis. Teachers
are not expected to contribute to the theories of social science in general. In Kelly’s
12
'Educational Priority Area' project.

Chapter Four 79
example, the last one tested in the GIST project is a combination of experimental and
teacher research model and usually deals with organisational research.
Carr & Kemmis (1989) classify AR into three subgroups; these are technical, practical
and emancipatory AR. Views about these types of AR come as follows.
4.6.6. Technical AR
It is concerned with the means by which researchers measure the effectiveness of
educational practices. In other words, the teachers in this research are mostly concerned
with the efficiency of tools that will be used to find solutions to problematic issues. The
main concern is usually with methods and techniques used. Facilitators help teachers to
work on externally identified concerns. Teachers may be asked to try out the
applicability of findings of other studies. The aim is to provide more effective
educational practices. The expected outcome is ‘improvement’ judged by facilitators’
references. Evaluation is done through pre-determined or facilitators reference (p. 241).
4.6.7. Practical AR
The aim is to increase the practitioners’ own practice, understanding and professional
development. Participants create the criteria of improvement individually. The
facilitators’ role is to provide a base-line for teachers. They help practitioners to spell out
their own concerns, issues or plans etc. They can work individually or collaboratively,
but constancy is more important (p.242).
4.6.8. Emancipatory AR
It is undertaken collaboratively and groups take joint responsibility for action and
reflection. The group devotes itself to the development of common practical theories,
improvement and outcomes. The main feature is that no individual decision, or action is
taken. Instead, individuals get rid of previous personal beliefs and habits and a group
dynamic is created while making decisions, using action plans, monitoring and reflecting
on actions to be taken. External support is not necessary, but may be included. The
immediate aim is empowerment; the general aim is practical and professional wisdom.
In this context, Carr & Kemmis (ibid.) also state that technical AR is only possible in
certain conditions, but much contemporary AR is practical rather than emancipatory
because emancipatory AR requires special conditions that are not always available.

Chapter Four 80
Freedom of speech, a certain degree of freedom for actions and arrangement for group
affairs are required. Yet, they conclude that only emancipatory AR fulfils the three
conditions of AR.
In addition, Carr & Kemmis (1990, p.45) state that “AR, as an expression of a critical
approach, can... inform and develop a critical theory (CT) of education”. They maintain
that “teachers themselves must become researchers” (p.127) and “in critical perspectives
the researcher needs to develop a systematic understanding of the conditions which
shape, limit and determine action so that these constraints can be taken into account”
(p.152). They finally state that “emancipatory AR,..., provides a means by which the
teaching profession and educational research can be reformulated so as to meet these
ends” (p.224).
4.6.9. The CRASP Model
Zuberr-Skerritt (1992b, p.114) offer a type of AR for the higher education system. This
type aims to improve understanding, improvement of learning, teaching, staff
development, and critical reflection on traditional operations of institutions. The
acronym of this model is the CRASP. Features are critical thinking of students and
teachers, researching teaching, learning and staff development, accountability of
academics, self-evaluation of oneself and professional development of teachers of higher
education.
4.6.10. Generative AR
Stronach (1986) suggests this model and it will be revisited under the next heading [4.7.]
and in the next chapter.
The spirals of planning, acting, observing, reflecting, re-
planning, in the frameworks presented so far are able to deal
with only one problem at a time. AR should offer the capacity
to deal with a number of problems at the same time by allowing
the spirals to develop spin-off spirals... (p.43). Generative AR
enables a teacher-researcher to address many different
problems at one time without losing sight of the main issue...
(p.45). (Stronach 1986, cited in McNiff 1995, pp.42-46)

Chapter Four 81
4.7. Models of Action Research
AR is a self-reflecting spiral of cycles and this spiral of cycles distinguish AR studies
from other types of research methods (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988). In the origin of AR
we saw that there is more than one potential source from which AR came. Yet it seemed
that among those sources only Lewin framed, for the first time, an AR model consisting
of several steps that consist of examination of a general idea, implementation of the idea,
fact finding or evaluation, planning of implementation, more fact-finding or evaluation
and reflection of whole circle activities (Lewin 1948, p.207).
From then on some researchers adapted Lewin’s model of AR and some others produced
their own models. Hence the production of new models has enriched the diversity of
models of AR in the literature. For example, Ebbutt (1985), Kemmis & McTaggart
(1988), Elliott (1991), McKernan (1991), Somekh (1989), Mcniff (1995), McBride
(1995), Cohen & Manion (1996) among others produced their own models of AR. One
reason for the production of new models is; each researcher considers that his/her model
is better than the model of others. They also consider that if someone undertakes an AR
study, their model must be used because their models are claimed to be better.
For example, Kemmis & McTaggart’s (1988) model of AR consists of four processes in
each cycle namely; planning, acting, observing and reflecting. However, Elliott (1991)
criticises this model of AR and states that the AR process must follow this cycle:
reconnaissance, general plan [includes action plans], implementation, and monitoring.
He (ibid.) maintains that the general idea must be changed when needed.
Reconnaissance must include fact-finding and evaluation and occur in each cycle.
Implementation of action plans is important and researchers should not proceed with the
research if they have not monitored the current cycle properly. In other models of AR,
for instance Somekh (1989) and McBride (1995), they follow a qualitative approach
while following each action cycle. Since the qualitative model [process-oriented model]
of AR is consistent with my research methodology (Hickcock & Hughes 1995, p.29), I
used Somekh’s (1989) and McBride’s (1995) models of AR while conducting my SOAR
in my research in Turkey. This model can be summarised as follows:
- Identify a focus of interest or a problem,
- Collect data,
- Analyse data and generate hypothesis,
- Plan action steps,

Chapter Four 82
- Implement Action Steps,
- Collect Data to Monitor Change,
- Analyse and Evaluate,
- Spiral [plan] to next circle.
(McBride 1995, p.27)
As stated in Chapter 1, Whitehead’s (1989) model of AR was used while investigating
the general objectives of the study13
. This model uses the following steps:
- I experience a problem…
- I imagine a solution to my problems.
- I act in the direction of my solutions.
- I evaluate the outcomes of my actions.
- I modify my problems/ideas/actions...,
(Whitehead 1989, p.43)
Although there are various types of action models, it is not possible to measure the
quality of those models as to whether or not some are better than others. In order to
claim such a view, one needs to employ an experimental design, which is not usually
favoured in educational and AR studies. The experimental approach to educational
studies is much criticised and typified ‘the agricultural-botany model’ (e.g. Hopkins
1996, p.39, Lawton 1982, p.171 and others). The origin of this model is credited to R. A.
Fisher in the 1930s and refers to putting those who are in the teaching and education
process into experimental and control groups. The final point of this section is my
observation about current AR models.
The classrooms I observed in Turkey were usually crowded. For instance, there were 20
pupils in T2’s classroom [prep B], 45 pupils in T4’s classroom [6-F], [see the picture on
p. 29], 45 pupils in T4’s classroom [7-D], 36 pupils in T6’s classroom [prep-A] and 30
pupils in T7’s classroom [prep-A] during my SFW in 1997 and the implementation of
action plans in 1998. In addition, T4’s and T5’s classrooms were noisy and there can be
several reasons for it. Thus if there are 20 or 40 pupils in a classroom, it also means that
there are or may be 20 or 40 types of interests. That is, each pupil may have a separate
learning strategy.
The question arises as follows; ‘how many action plans must a teacher use/employ
during a lesson?’ and why? If teachers produce and use only one action plan at a time, it
means that the diversity of pupils’ learning strategies is ignored. Instead, teachers must
13
See chapter 6 for more informationabout action models and action plans used in 1997, 1998 and 1999.

Chapter Four 83
have several action plans to deal with problems or to address learners’ needs (Stronach
1986). Generally speaking, I believe that those who suggest the use of only one action
plan in each cycle usually ignore individual differences. Using only one action plan may
not also address each learner’s needs in one classroom. This point will be touched on in
Chapter 5, under the heading of [5.5.2.].
4.8. Data Collection Tools
Researchers may collect data by using various means while undertaking their AR
projects. Hence research means used in AR studies is not specific only to AR. Rather
those methods and techniques are also used in other social sciences. For example,
interview, diary, observation techniques used in AR studies can also be used in Surveys,
Case study (CS), Ethnographic Research, etc. For that reason, it seems that action
researchers reveal similar views about data collection methods and techniques used in
AR studies.
Although researchers share almost the same ideas about those means, some researchers
pose one or two different methods or techniques used in AR study. For example,
Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) consider research means ‘monitoring techniques’ rather
than ‘data collection methods’. For them anecdotal records, ecological behavioural
description, item sampling cards and portfolios are some of the monitoring techniques
among others and other researchers do not refer to these. Besides, Elliott (1991) calls
these ‘data collection methods’ in AR study. Some of them are outside observer, running
commentary, triangulation, the shadow study and analytic memos among others. Briefly,
other researchers, too, reveal some means to collect data in AR studies, but the choice of
these data collection tools may depend on the action researchers themselves, the context
in which research takes place, etc.
Consequently, no matter how data is collected -whether through observations, interview,
field notes etc. or not- it must eventually be analysed and published as reports. Hence the
next section is important in AR studies and will look at data analysis and the reportage
of analysis critically.

Chapter Four 84
4.9. Evaluation of Action Research Studies
This topic was one of the important phenomena I have considered a great deal
throughout my AR study. The first question I entertained was whether AR has its own
specific evaluation tools (methods, techniques etc.) or not, apart from other research
methods. The review of literature included in this section indicates that only a few of the
researchers explain how AR data should be analysed and reported. That is, many figures
talk about AR, TR, etc., but the majority of those figures do not reveal their views about
the evaluation of AR. Hence I was mainly concerned with two types of questions while
reviewing the literature of AR. The first one was;
4.9.1. What is/are evaluated in AR studies?
The first question can be clarified as follows: AR consists of a cyclical process namely:
planning, acting, implementing, reflecting, monitoring, etc. The other issues I considered
are; a) should we evaluate each item (step by step process) individually, or b) should we
evaluate the results of research in general?, or c) should we view both of them? At this
point the question of what should be evaluated? raises the question of what are the
criteria of evaluation? In Lomax’s (1994, p.114) view “criteria refer to the principles or
standards by which something is judged”. Besides this, “the transparency of the research
process and the authenticity of the research claims are key criteria” (p.119). Her views
about what needs to be evaluated in AR study come as follows:
Teacher research is not scientific, it is educational... our most
fundamental criteria should focus on the development of
educational intentions (p.118)..., practice is practical. Teacher
research must also be practical... ‘Practical’ work is immediate
and concrete. (Lomax 1994, p.121)
This means that the chosen topic to study, or research questions all refer to the
researchers’ objectives. In my case the research questions stated in Chapter 1 should be
evaluated. So these objectives also refer to researchers’ intentions to achieve. We saw
while reading the objectives of AR that the objectives of AR were to improve practice,
or solve problems. This equally means that if there are some improvements of practice or
solutions to problems, educational intentions are achieved and practice (actions) has
improved.
McNiff (1995) explains the criteria of AR and data analysis as follows:

Chapter Four 85
An appropriate form of analysis would be through discussion of
criteria and areas of concerns... In order to be explanatory,
analysis has to look at the total action in order to suggest how
one aspect will influence another. (McNiff 1995, p.85)
This reference clearly explains that if evaluation criteria are discussed and agreed by
participants at the outset, evaluators must assess whether or not those discussed and
agreed criteria were achieved at the end of research.
The other views about evaluation through the objectives of AR are as follows. For
example, Elliott (1991, p.49) states that “the fundamental aim of AR is to improve
practice...”. He also states “both process and product in education need to be jointly
considered” (p.50). This view answers the question of ‘should we evaluate each step in
AR studies?’ Elliott’s (1991) view implies that each step of AR (data gathering,
planning, implementing, monitoring, reflecting, etc.) must be evaluated individually. It
also means that we must evaluate the process of AR studies.
Besides, it suggests that we must evaluate the whole outcome of the study as a product.
This view answers the question of ‘should we evaluate the results of research in
general?’ Elliott (ibid.) explains the question ‘what must be evaluated in AR studies? as
follows:
In AR studies, theories are not validated independently and then
applied to practice. They are validated through practice.
(Elliott 1991, p.69)
We saw in Somekh’s (1989) and McBride’s (1995) models of AR that theories can be
produced at two stages. Theories are first produced as action plans after data collection
to be implemented. They may also be produced at the end of the research from the
research results (Altrichter et al. 1993, p.187). It then seems that researchers must
compare whether or not their interests or objectives -identified at the outset and
implemented as action plans- were achieved. That is, if we do not achieve our research
objectives or action plans, it means that no improvement of practice and no solution to
research problems. In this view both process and product are evaluated.
Besides, McLean (1995, p.56) states that, “the interpretation of the results is essentially
answering the AR questions”. This idea is similar to the deductive coding of data and
will be touched in section 7.7. in Chapter 7 while explaining Making Sense of the

Chapter Four 86
Collected Data. This idea is also similar to Elliott’s (1991) and implies that action
researchers must seek answers to research questions. Besides this, McLean’s (1995)
view means that if they find sufficient answers to research questions, it means that
researchers have achieved their research objectives and that the practice has improved.
In addition, some other figures state that AR deals with improvement. For example,
Hutchinson & Whitehouse (1986, p.90) state that “the whole point of AR is to improve
practice...”. Altrichter et al. (1993, p.74) also explain the criteria for judging the quality
of AR and mention that “improvement of practice, developing the understanding of
participants and development of teachers’ professional knowledge” are the things that
need to be improved in AR study. In their view evaluation is carried out to see if
improvement has been achieved or not in the above mentioned items.
Hollingsworth, Nofke, Walker & Winter (1997, p.316) state that:
The result of AR... must be evaluated along with judgements
about what counts as ‘improvement’ and by whom.
Consequently, it is clear from the literature of AR that only several of the references
declare ideas about what should be evaluated in AR study. It is also clear that the
objectives of research, research questions [research issues] and action plans are
evaluated to see whether or not they are achieved.
One further point, I believe, which needs to be stated is about the necessity of
distinguishing the evaluation of AR studies undertaken by teachers to improve practice
or solve problems at schools from AR studies undertaken by teachers or others for MA,
M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees at universities. The reason is that one teacher or a few
teachers may undertake an AR study in their schools, without seeking a higher degree. In
another case some teachers or others may undertake an AR study either in their schools
or other institutions for higher degrees.
The AR studies in schools may have practical and small scale aims to improve practice,
or solve educational problems. However, AR studies undertaken for higher degrees must
also satisfy the criteria of getting MA, M.Phil. and Ph.D. Otherwise, teachers who
undertake AR study at their schools merely to deal with educational problems or
improve practice may claim ‘why does this study not deserve a higher degree’. Several
academics reveal views about the criteria of teachers’ AR studies. For instance, Elliott

Chapter Four 87
(1984) reveals the criteria (p.60-61) of the submitted AR studies for the award of
‘Certificate in Educational Action Research’ (p.61). In addition, Elliott et al. (1994-
1996), after analysing and comparing teacher research at masters’ level with funded
research, state that:
[It was] reasonable to expect practitioner researchers at masters
levels to observe some of the methodological principles of
mainstream qualitative inquiry. ... practitioner research, at least
in the context of masters degrees, needed to be less ambitious
in its claims. It might not be possible to contribute to practice,
to effect political transformation, and to contribute to
knowledge (p.15-16).
(Elliott, MacLure, Sarland & Goodson, 1994-1996)
I now turn to reportage of AR studies.
4.9.2. How is the evaluation of AR studies reported/represented?
This review of the literature of AR has shown that it has similar features to the data
analysis features of qualitative studies. AR also uses terms such as ‘encoding, cross-
check, narrative account, story, case data, case record’, etc. That is, researchers may
analyse data by seeking answers to the research questions (McLean 1995), or comparing
theories or statements with practices (Elliott 1991), etc. As to reportage of analysis, the
following categories seem common in the literature of AR. These are:
4.9.2.1. The CS Approach
One way of reporting AR data is the case study (CS) approach. For example, Elliott
(1980), in his early work, offers two options; one of which is case study. Elliott (1991,
p.88) maintains that “CS are a way of publicly reporting AR to date and CS reports
should be based on analytic memos”. He further states that case data and case record
constitute CS. The former refers to “all the evidence one collects...”., whereas the latter
refers to “... an ordered selection of evidence from the case data, which is organised to
support the issues addressed in the CS”.
McNiff et al. (1996, p.21) explain the difference between data and evidence like this.
For them “data is not evidence, it becomes evidence when it is used to support a claim
that has been made”. They maintain that we must draw evidence from data to support
statements or claims we raise. In their view case data is all the material collected by the
researcher. The case record is “a parsimonious condensation of the case data” or “an

Chapter Four 88
edited primary source” (p.21). In addition, Altrichter et al. (1993) offer five options for
reportage, one of which is case study. They also state that “teachers may chose one case
taken from their practice” (p.185). They maintain that if there is more than one case
“cross-case analysis” is necessary. Moreover, Wallace (1998) states that action
researchers deal with specific or unique situations. Hence “the CS approach comfortably
fits into the AR framework” (p.170). Implicit here is the definition of a case. In his
understanding CS concentrates on what is ‘unique’ (an individual student, event, group,
etc. (p.161) [ see sections 7.7.4. to 7.7.6 to read the case and CS].
4.9.2.2. Story
Another possible way of reporting AR data seems to be through stories. For example,
Elliott (1980), in his second option, states that research may be presented in ordinary
everyday language and the form can be a story. Winter (1989) states that:
A story is a fictional, narrative of any length.... A story does
not simply recount events, but it is a selection of events... which
have been organised into a pattern... hence, stories are
statements. (Winter (1989, p.163)
McNiff et al. (1996), explaining several types of possibilities, state that the narrative
form of writing is practical. This form must give a full picture....and the form must give
the feeling of a story rather than a specific type of analysis. In their views, “self
reflection, dialogue conversation, AR cycles and spirals, drawings and experiential
techniques” are among possible options (pp.21-23).
4.9.2.3. Portrayals
Another possible way of reporting data in an AR study is to produce portrayals, in
which “an event is described vividly and in great detail without much analysis or
interpretations” (Altrichter et al. (1993, p.186). The aim of this form is that readers have
an impression of being in situations or contexts in which AR is undertaken and make
their own judgements while reading the portrayals. These kinds of texts are usually open
to discussion because of the possibility of multiple interpretations.
4.9.2.4. Statement & Snack Charts
Two further ways of reporting data in literature are through statements and snack charts.
The former refers to the most condensed and brief form of report data. Altrichter et al.

Chapter Four 89
(1993) state that Elliott (1976) used this sort of analysis and produced hypotheses from
the FTP. This form is easy to read, but it is difficult to illuminate the whole research
process. The latter is “ a picture annotated with notes which shows significant events for
the drawer in the form of an undulating line” (McNiff et al. 1996, p.132).
As seen there is no one way of analysing and reporting AR data. The format of writing is
usually determined by the collected data, audience and function, researcher themselves,
etc. A final point is about the format of AR reports. For example, Elliott (1981, pp.154-
55) and Stake (1995, p.131) provide general criteria for case study reports and state that
those reports should have certain formats. Clarke et al. (1993, pp.446-7) and Tickle
(1995, pp.233-4) suggest some general criteria for the formats of AR reports.
In brief, it is seen that the number of references concerning the evaluation of AR studies
is not more than a couple. Research questions, action plans, researchers’ objectives, etc.
are evaluated in AR study and CS, stories, statements, portrayals, snack charts among
others are the common ways of reporting AR studies.
4.10. Critique of Action Research
Hodgkinson (1988) states that there are only a few articles of a critical nature about AR.
An early one was by Rapoport (1970) whose criticism includes three main points
namely; ethics, goals and initiatives. The dilemma of goals refers to “the choice between
scientific rigour versus practical problem solving”. The dilemma of initiatives refers to
the people who are going to raise research problems and initiate the study, teachers or
externals. The ethical dilemma refers to accepting the clients as a researcher or not. He
also says that when clients are accepted..., the issues that arise are “confidentiality and
the protection of respondents”. He maintains that “good AR should not make researchers
captives of organisations and ignore the privacy of clients” (p.504). He concludes that
AR must try to enhance the practical concerns of people and the rational interests of the
community.
In the AR context, for example, Argyris & Schon (1991, p.86) state that “generalisations
are unlikely...”. Allwright & Bailey (1994, p.50) also ascertain that the aim of AR is to
enhance “local understanding” and the issue of generalisation is not important in AR
studies. Besides, Charles (1995, pp.220-9) maintains that practitioners’ AR is conducted
at a local level and there are no intentions to apply the findings of the study elsewhere.

Chapter Four 90
Stenhouse and others state that the accumulation and synthesis of findings may make it
possible to generalise the results of AR case study (McLean 1995). In addition, Corey
(1988) reveals the following views about the generalisation of findings of AR studies:
In AR studies the investigator is more interested in the particular
subjects he is studying and less interested in the total theoretical
population of which ... Knowledge about [logical analysis,
mathematical statistics, etc.] seems of less significance for action
researchers because, ..., they are not so interested in extending
their generalisations to populations beyond those they are
studying. (Corey 1988, p.64)
We can conclude that AR study is local and situational. One situation has its own
feature(s) and is possibly different from other situations. However, Corey (1953, p.24)
also states that those who undertake AR study cannot make ‘lateral extensions’ but make
‘vertical ones’. Here it is meant that the findings of a research study undertaken in year 3
of a school may possibly be generalised to years 3 in other schools, but not to the whole
student population.
As far as the validity of AR is concerned, Ebbutt & Elliott (1985) explain internal and
external validity of AR as follows:
An account can be judged to be internally valid if the author
demonstrates that the changes indicated by his/her analysis of a
problem constitute an improvement. An account can be judged
to be externally valid if the insights it contains can be
generalised beyond the situation (s) studied.
(Ebbutt & Elliott 1985, p.11)
However, McLean (1995, p.44) states that AR studies are most valid if they are
evaluated in the contexts in which they were undertaken, but AR studies are not much
valid if results are generalised beyond the contexts in which they were undertaken.
Besides, McNiff et al. (1996, p.24) hold that validation of AR studies can be through
“making claims, critically examining the claims against evidence and involving others in
making judgements”. In addition, Elliott’s (1991, p.82) view of triangulation, which
refers to collecting data from different sources and comparing or contrasting them, is
another way of validating evidence. It is also stated that triangulation of evidence must
lead to the production of various reports [case record, analytic memos etc.]. These
criticisms apply equally to other research methods such as CS, surveys, qualitative
research, etc.

Chapter Four 91
Thus far this chapter reviewed the literature of AR while answering the 2nd
research
question, stated in Chapter 1. The reason was that this chapter also aimed to introduce
the notion of AR into a context (Turkey) in which the AR approach was not widely used.
Another aim was to make teachers, researchers and others aware of AR in Turkey. From
now on, this part aims to answer the questions highlighted at the end of Chapter 3. A
brief review of these questions is;
Question 1) Does the literature of AR reveal any views about ‘introduction and
initiation’ of AR studies for the first time?
Question 2) Does the literature of AR reveal any view about language [English]
teaching and the selected topic -vocabulary teaching?
In order to answer the first question the references cited here were critically reviewed in
order to discover academics’ and researchers’ views. Most of them describe the first step
that should be done. For example, for Elliott (1991) the first thing is to identify a general
idea. For Cohen & Manion (1996) the first thing is to identify a problematic point. That
is, most of them do not reveal any views about the introduction of AR to different
contexts for the first time. They also do not state the necessity of introducing the notion
of AR before initiating the study when participants are unaware of AR. Only a few
academics such as Elliott (1976, 1985, p.259-60), Kemmis (1985, p.40) state views
about the preparation and facilitation of AR studies at schools. For example, Elliott
(1985) states the necessity of involving teachers’ views while identifying the starting
point of research.
In order to answer the second question the literature was also reviewed. There are many
AR studies, as I will show in the next chapter. However, these researchers use their
models and investigate their own interest [issue, problem, etc.]. They do not state
general guidelines that could be used by all language teachers. Note that the next chapter
attempts to explore these general guidelines.
4.11. Conclusion
This review of the AR literature reveals some common points, i.e. ‘features of AR’. For
some researchers these common points refer to ‘principles of AR’ and they are;

Chapter Four 92
First, AR embodies features of ‘democracy’. In Kemmis’ view (1985, p.40) democracy
means “freedom of discourse and true statements”. It means participants have equal
rights to spell out their views about research, process, evaluation, outcomes, etc. AR
follows a “bottom-up rather than top-down’ process” [Elliott, (1991, p.6), Kember
(2000, p.29)]. This means that the decision making process includes ‘participation,
discussion and agreement’. AR involves participants from the beginning of the research
to the end. This means that hierarchical relations among participants are not favoured in
AR studies. For instance, head teachers or external researchers should not impose their
views, or plans on teachers. Likewise, teachers should not have inferior positions or
status in relation to head teachers or academics. Agreement refers to showing respect to
participants’ views. Each participant has the right to accept or refuse other participants’
views about process, action plans, evaluation, etc. Terms often used include ‘equal right
and equal opportunity, discussion, agreements, participation, and freedom of discourse
and statements’.
Second, ‘collaboration’ is a much-stressed feature; (Cohen & Manion 1996, p.186),
(Green & Wallat 1983, p.94), (Kemmis 1985, p.35), (Nunan 1989, p.13), (Oya &
Smulyan 1989, p.13), (Elliott 1991, p.55), (Nofke & Stevenson 1995, p.203), (Hitchcock
& Hughes 1995, p.28). Some other studies use the term ‘involvement’ instead of
collaboration (Carr & Kemmis 1990, p.165), (McNiff 1995, p.3), (Stringer 1996, p.29).
In other cases the word ‘participation’ is used to mean the same thing (Kemmis 1997,
p.175). These three terms -collaboration, involvement and participation- are meant to
include all participants and obtain their views at each stage of AR. So collaboration
happens among teachers and between teachers and external researchers. Equally,
collaboration may include others - parents, children, society members, etc. In this
context, Shumsky (1988) explains the potential benefits of collaborating as follows:
collaboration “improves group belonging, creativity and critical thinking (p, 81),
consensus and promotes change” (p.82).
Although ‘collaboration’ is seen as necessary by researchers, the opposite idea claims
that AR study does not necessarily require collaboration: Nunan (1994, p.18) maintains
that any work undertaken by individual teachers must be considered as AR. On single or
collaborative research I wrote the following diary note:

Chapter Four 93
Collaborative AR is generally supported by researchers Elliott
(1991), Cohen & Manion (1996), McNiff (1995) etc. It is
claimed that when research is undertaken collaboratively, it is
generally more successful and researchers get more outcomes
from the study. First, collaboration does not take place while
teachers actually teach in classrooms because only one teacher
usually teaches in each classroom. Second, collaboration
implies that collaboratively undertaken studies are usually
successful, whereas individually undertaken studies are not. ....
do I [we] always need other’s help/advice in my [our] AR study
to improve a certain practice? Not always.
(diary, 1/8/1997, p. 8)
Third, AR is ‘pragmatic’ because it aims to improve the current situation or solve
problems in schools. (Hutchinson & Whitehouse 1986, p.90), (Oya & Smulyan 1989,
p.13), (Kemmis 1985, p.37), (Zuber-Skerritt (1992a, p.14), (Carr & Kemmis 1990,
p.165), (Charles 1995, p.220), (Kemmis 1997, p.174). For instance, Elliott (1980) states
that AR generates our awareness about classroom life. He (1991) also states that the aim
of AR is “to improve practice rather than to generate knowledge” (p.49). He maintains
that AR is a solution to “theory-practice issues” (p.53). Briefly, while explaining the
objectives of AR, we saw that AR deals with immediate, present problems and tries to
find certain solutions to them. In other words, AR does not take place in schools in the
form of theoretical discussions.
Fourth, AR is ‘practitioner-based research’ in schools as insiders are seen to have
advantages over outsiders (Hopkins 1996, p.35), (Nunan 1989, p.13), (Nunan 1994.
p.17), (McNiff 1995, p.4), (Kemmis 1997, p.175), among others. Practitioners refer to
teachers or head teachers in schools. Carr & Kemmis (1989, p.237) state that “AR is a
research into practice, by practitioners, for practitioners”. While producing my own
definition of AR I stated that AR at schools should be primarily undertaken by job-
holders. This is because teachers or head-teachers have easy access to classrooms, and
schools. They also know the school context in which they teach. Having more
knowledge about pupils, school atmosphere, students life etc. may give teachers an
advantage while analysing the current situations and producing action plans.
Fifth, in AR studies ‘process’ is important, but it does not ignore ‘product’. (Charles
1995. p.223), (McLean 1995, p.3), (Elliott 1995, p.11), (Kemmis 1997, p.176). We know
that the aim of qualitative research is to discover “why” (McBride 1995, p.7). So to
discover answers and pursue questions such as why it happens, why s/he says this, etc.,

Chapter Four 94
we have to make continuous efforts that are called the process. In the AR case it refers
to looking at how participants think about the studied topic, how they view their roles,
how they produce action plans, or why they do not implement action plans etc. Hence, I
agree with Hitchcock & Hughes (1995, p.29), who state that AR studies become process
oriented by using “qualitative methodologies and techniques”. Hence both the process of
doing AR and its outcomes [product] are important.
Sixth, AR studies take the form of a cyclical [spiral] process and this is a major feature
of the AR approach. (Kemmis 1985, p.36), (Nunan 1994, p.18), (Hitchcock & Hughes
1995, p.28), (Kemmis 1997, p.175). It is possible to see different types of cycles in the
literature [see Kemmis (1985), Ebbutt (1985), Elliott (1991), McKernan (1991) and
others]. For instance, Kemmis’ (1985, p.39) model of AR consists of ‘planning, acting,
observing and reflecting’. As stated earlier, two models of AR were used while
investigating the goals of this study. Besides this, the AR model I used in my SOAR
study follows a qualitative research design. After identifying a focus it collects and
analyses data, generates hypotheses, plans and implements action steps, etc. [see
Somekh 1989, McBride 1995]. The advantage of the cyclical process is that we may
produce more sound hypotheses [theories] after implementing a few cycles of AR. In
this sense the cyclical process also resembles an experimental research design.
Seven, ‘actions’ are the hallmark of AR studies. (Stenhouse 1985, p.58), (Kemmis 1985,
p.39), (Mcniff 1995, p.3), (McNiff et al 1996, p.8). Actions are produced after collection
and analysis of data and require an agreement on the part of participants. Actions can be
produced to solve problems or improve a situation [see 4.4.]. In this sense
implementation of actions and bringing about ‘change’ are parallel. In Stenhouse’s view
(1985) actions are the heart of AR. For Carr & Kemmis (1990, p.124) educational
actions are “critical reflections and practical actions”. In addition, McNiff et al. (1996,
pp. 17-18) state that actions [praxis] must be “informed, committed, and intentional”.
Eight, AR seems to be both process oriented and structured. This view emerged out of
my critical review of the literature. Although AR usually tends to give emphasis to the
process, it is clear from the models of AR that researchers use/follow structured-designs
while undertaking research. By this I mean that action researchers may use various AR
models and these models are usually pre-designed. For instance, if one uses Kemmis’
(1985) model, -plan, act, observe and reflect, one has to follow certain steps of that AR

Chapter Four 95
model. However, following certain steps through cycles may produce sound outcomes
and this may give rigour to the study.
Nine, AR studies are ‘biased’. This feature also emerged out of my reading. We saw that
AR is undertaken as either first order AR or second order AR. In the FOAR researchers
themselves do everything from the beginning to the end. In the SOAR front line
researchers are used. No matter whether the AR study is first or second order, since we
try to bring about change [which refers to improving situation, or solving problems] by
implementing action plans. Likewise, production and implementation of action plans
also include an intervention to the research process. Thus, if we intervene into the
research process to achieve our research objectives, then we are biased. The following
researchers also state that intervention is a part of AR. Halsey (1972, p.165), Carr &
Kemmis (1989, p.224), Cohen & Manion (1996, p.186), McNiff et al (1996), Hopkins
(1996, p.54). Hence we can consider intervention not only a critical point, but also an
intrinsic part of AR itself.
Ten, AR unites reflection and reflexivity (Elliott 1995). Reflection refers to
accumulating information about the research process, findings, etc. It also refers to
informing the public, whereas reflexivity refers to a systematic review of self-
understanding, self-realisation. In this sense AR not only aims to solve problems or
improve the situation, but it also seeks practitioner personal and professional
development. We can summarise these reviews as follows:
- There are conflicting claims about the origins of AR.
- Previous definitions did not serve my research aims so then I produced my own
definition.
- It seems that AR deals with current and practical situations at schools. It brings about
change by improving situations or solving problems.
- The bottom-up process is dominant in AR studies.
- This bottom-up process enables teachers to select their research interest. In this sense
AR addresses teachers’ research needs.
- This bottom-up process also rejects a bureaucratic imposition of the research focus.

Chapter Four 96
- AR evaluates both the researched and the researcher. The former is best done through
process evaluation, the latter is achieved through self-realisation.
- AR does not have its own specific data collection methods or techniques.
- A general observation about Chapter Three and this chapter is that the aim of the
previous chapter was to explore the contextual conditions that might support or facilitate
AR studies in Turkey. At the end of that chapter it was found that decisions about
education training, Inset, evaluation, national curriculum, annual plans, selection of
course books by schools, the methodology of teaching among others follow a ‘top-
down’ process. However, this chapter [Chapter Four] states the importance of ‘bottom-
up’ decision-making process.
- The final issue from Chapter 3 was the exploration of AR and language teaching
theories. The next chapter addresses this issue.

Chapter Five 97
CHAPTER FIVE
ACTION RESEARCH AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TEACHING
A thorough test of any theoretical formulation is not its own
ability to explain and account for phenomena which have been
demonstrated, but also its ability to provide suggestions for further
investigations, to raise new questions, to promote further
developments and open horizons.
(Gardner, R. C. 1985, p. 166)
Introduction
The previous chapter critically reviewed the literature of AR while introducing it to the
research context and addressing the issues highlighted at the end of Chapter 3. However,
one of the issues -the relationship (s) of AR and language teaching theories- was left
untouched. Hence the objective of this chapter is to explore the possible relationships to
improve English teaching. Thus this chapter attempts to discover some common points
(patterns) between AR language and teaching/learning theories. To that end this chapter
first reviews the previous AR studies on language teaching to see if any of them made
such an attempt. It then produces some common points (patterns) between AR and
language teaching learning theories. It concludes that if language teachers use these
common points, English language teaching may be more successful.
5.1. Rationale
Several reasons motivated the writing of this chapter. First, a study that explores the use
of the AR approach and action plans for English language teaching should consider
language teaching. Second, a Ph.D. study should make an original contribution to
knowledge about the focus of the study. Third, added to the second reason, ‘can we
always [or still] consider the GTM as being out of date and the CLT as being useful? In
other words, what must language teachers [or action researchers] know about AR and
language teaching theories? This chapter tries to answer this question and claims that
‘that answer’ is an original observation.

Chapter Five 98
The use of the AR approach in language teaching/learning studies is not new. For
instance researchers such as Kebir (1994, p.28), Nunan (1994, p. 19), Ellis (1997, p.39),
Wallace (1998) among others produced some models of AR while investigating their
interests. They also used their own models while investigating a specific problem or
pursuing an issue. I do not criticise the above mentioned researchers’ ideas and action
models, but my intention here is to produce something general that might be used by all
teachers and researchers. In doing so I pose my views of English language teaching that
emerge from an analysis of AR and language teaching theories.
This objective is approached in two ways among others. 1) By reviewing previous AR
studies on language teaching to see if any researcher tried to explore the common points
(features) of AR and language teaching theories. 2) By comparing the features
[principles, objectives] of the AR approach with the features of language teaching
theories (methods, techniques). First, these will be explained individually.
5.2. A Review of Previous AR Studies on Language Teaching
To begin with, I assumed that the literature on AR could be reviewed by using BEI14
catalogues (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, etc.) and I could choose AR studies on languages because
those catalogues include all of the AR studies under the heading Action Research.
However, a problem occurred while trying to choose those studies and the following
articles explain this problem clearly.
1) Isserlis, J. (1990) ‘Using Action Research for ESL Literacy Evaluation
and Assessment’, T.E.S.L. Talk, Vol. 20, No. 1., pp. 305-316.
2) Warner, L. (1996) ‘Teachers as Action Researchers in the Classroom’,
Dimensions of Early Childhood, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 22-25.
The first article clearly indicates the focus of that research and subject area, but we do
not know much about the second article and teacher’s subject area. In addition, the BEI
catalogues display [included] countless AR studies under the heading Action Research,
but very few of them gives clues about the focus and the subject areas.
So the review of the literature was considered through the use of the ‘on-line database’
from the computer. In doing so the key word search was done in ‘complete reference’
form -AR and language teaching-, but the relevant articles were chosen with the help of

Chapter Five 99
‘the subject heading’ of on-line displayed data-base. This is because the title ‘subject
heading’ option provides further information about the subject area, the method used,
related other fields, etc. This point can be briefly illustrated with an example as follows.
Accession Number EJ568779
Author…. … Smith, Kari.
..............................
Source................... English Teachers’ Journal (Israel) p.31-38, 1997.
ERIC Subject Headings
Action Research,
English, Second Language,
In-service Teacher Education,
Language Teachers,
Second Language Instruction,
Student Evaluation
...................................
After choosing AR studies on language teaching and searching their availability in the
UEA library, the following table appeared to indicate the quantity of AR studies,
available and non-available studies. The table can be represented as follows:
ERIC ERIC BIE
Year 1966-1983 1984-2000 1986-2000
Total AR 60 710 370
AR on Lang. Teaching 6 54 18
Available - 15 13
I L L 2 36 5
Microfiche 4 18 -
The ERIC and BEI databases are continuously being updated. In addition, the studies
undertaken in 2000 may not have been fully added to the database. Using the references
published in the BEI and ERIC relevant studies were critically reviewed to see if any had
investigated the goal of this chapter. Brief reviews of these studies are:
It was seen that some of the above displayed AR studies on language teaching are
available in the UEA main library, but some of them are not. On the other hand, the
number of the articles I should get through inter library lending (I L L) was about 50.
The available articles were photocopied from the library, but it was assumed that non-
14
BEI stands for British Education Index.

Chapter Five 100
available ones should be read through ‘on-line data base’ to save time. So the following
part offers a brief account of previous AR studies.
5.2.1. AR Studies from the BEI
Two of these studies are theoretical. Georgiadou (1992) criticises the traditional research
methods and favours a research-based approach. Crookes (1993) classifies AR studies
as having a ‘teacher-research version’ and a ‘social-research version’ and states that the
latter does not deal with second language (SL) education.
The rest of the AR studies on language teaching/learning are empirical. Levine (1986)
formed a teacher research group that investigated the relationships between talk and
learning. Johnstone’s aim (1990) was to assess the oral competence in foreign languages
and to review the extensive documentation (booklets, audio/video-packages etc.)
produced to improve oral practice. Cumming & Gill (1991) tried to teach English to 28
Panjabi-speaking women in Canada. Fortune (1992) analysed types of grammatical error
and tried to improve grammar teaching in an AR study. Armstrong (1992) investigated
the use of “home languages in schools” while teaching English. Philpott’s (1993)
interest was to look into possible relationships between the seating patterns of students
in the classroom and their observed attitudes towards class activities while he was
teaching English in Corduba. Two of the other AR studies aimed to improve students’
skills, awareness of using arguments in various forms and the issue of gender
stereotyping (Andrews 1993) and (Sergeant 1993). Pritchard (1995) explains an English
teacher’s experience of AR to solve the tension between Japanese students and that
English teacher. Thorne & Qiang (1996) investigated the effect of AR on MA trainee
teachers. Block (1997) initiated his research with two research questions to learn about
his students studying English. Irshad & Imrie (1997) undertook an AR study to solve
minority children’s underachievement problem.
5.2.2. AR Studies from the Journal of Educational Action Research
Sumara & Luce-Kapler(1993) were involved in an AR study with four English teachers
to develop the metaphor of textual reading and writing. Laidlaw (1994) undertook a
Ph.D. study to understand how her democratic principles worked while her student,
Sarah, was trying to improve her understanding and actions with her pupils. Mok (1997,
p.306) investigated the effect of “student input and involvement” in an English language
programme in Hong Kong. Meyer & Etheridge (1999) investigated curricular and

Chapter Five 101
activity change while teaching Spanish. O’Brien et al. (2000) aimed to introduce the
notion of AR to language support teachers within a pilot Inset teacher development
programme in Manchester. Rainey (2000) aimed to explore EFL teachers’ knowledge
and opinions with respect to AR.
5.2.3. The Other AR Studies
In addition, the other AR studies such as Kebir (1997), Ellis (1997), Allwright (1997),
Nunan (1996), Green (1996) among others did not investigate the objective of this
chapter. Consequently, we can conclude that none of these studies explored common
points (patterns) between AR and language teaching theories. This finding indicates that
my concerns to explore the common points of AR and language teaching theories are
worth investigating. We now turn to a brief review of basic terms.
5.3. A Review of Key Terms in Language Studies
This part (5.3.) mainly offers a brief account of the basic terms used in language studies.
These are language teaching, language learning, language acquisition, first language,
second language, foreign language and child language acquisition.
5.3.1. Language Teaching/Language Learning
Language learning and teaching may be defined in many ways because of various
approaches (behaviourist, cognitive, etc.), theories, methods, strategies, etc., but my goal
is to provide a basic understanding of these two terms and take Desforges’ (1995) views
to keep the discussion at a basic level. He (ibid.) defines teaching in terms of teachers
who teach at schools and learning in terms of children who go to schools. Thus I take
‘teaching’ as a teacher-based activity and ‘learning’ as learner (pupils/students) based
activity. This is because the study I undertook at three schools in Turkey tried to
improve [English] language teaching in terms of teachers and language learning in terms
of pupils. Some of the other views about language learning and teaching can be briefly
stated as follows;
In Stern’s (1984) view the psychological study of the learning process both influenced
the concept of learning and the concept of language learning. On the same line Harmer
(1995) states that nobody exactly knows how people learn languages although there is
much research on this subject. Cook (1993) explains this point by saying that “all
successful teaching depends upon learning” and it is useless to consider “lively and well-

Chapter Five 102
planned language lessons” if students do not learn. In his view “the proof of teaching is
in the learning” (p.3). In addition, for the behaviourist view the occurrence of human
behaviours depend on stimulus, response and reinforcement and language
learning/teaching in the ALM is based on this belief.
However, Chomsky (1986) and his followers defend the cognitive (mentalist) approach
and reject the structuralist approach to language description and the behaviourist theory
of language learning by saying “language is not a habit structure” (p.262). He also says
that “if reinforcement was taken seriously...” (p.126) I would not say the words
“Moscow, Eisenhower” without being stimulated (p. 121). Supporters of the cognitive
view also believe that “language is unique to the human species, and a common part of
our shared biological endowment” (Maher & Groves 1998, p.11). Note that the ALM
will be explained in the next section [see 5.4].
It is common knowledge that the views about language teaching/learning in the literature
are diverse. Besides this, most of these views are theoretical and reviewing all of them is
not practical. In this context I believe that exploring participant teachers’ views of
language learning and teaching is as important as the theoretical views posed in the
literature because this may give us some ideas about language teaching in the research
context. To that end the first part of the following extracts indicate how the participant
teachers learnt or studied English in Turkey during their undergraduate studies at
universities. The second part indicates how they teach English at schools now.
5.3.1.1. Participant Teachers’ Language Learning Experience
The analysis of teachers’ views indicated that each teacher revealed a different strategy
for himself/herself. So these views will be explained briefly. For instance, T2 states that
“I was good at memorising..., in those days, the language teacher used to write twenty
new words on the board..., and I used to memorise those words [at once]. Besides, I
liked it [English],...” (int. 14/5/1999). In T4’s experience, he learnt English by
memorising and using new words in pattern sentences (int. 12/5/1999). For T5 a
mathematics teacher taught English at the secondary school, but there was an English
teacher at the high school. She stated that “...I liked it [English] and felt a sympathy for
it..., ...I liked the translation lessons very much...” (13/5/1999).

Chapter Five 103
For T6 “English was one of [ her ] favourite modules [at the university]”. She also
stated that “I was studying by writing, the method I used at that time was like this” ( int.
14/5/1999). According to T7’s experience [students] “... had very much psychological
support from [their] course teachers”. He also states that “the structure of the courses
was very good,... all course teachers used to give a quiz every three days..., and used to
teach through pictures and drawings. He concludes that, “our course teachers knew that
we had to learn English...” (14/5/1999).
The above noted teachers’ language learning experiences suggest the following views.
First, the extracts indicate that these teachers used different strategies while learning
English. For instance, T2 was good at memorising, T4 both memorised and used new
words in sample sentences, T5 liked translation lessons, etc. This finding really caught
my attention. Although the GTM is much criticised, it seems that this method is still
useful for some learners. To date, if we apply questionnaires to a class of pupils learning
English, it is possible that some may learn through drawing, some may learn through
repetition, etc.
In sum, this point suggests that language teachers must consider learners’ likes and
dislikes. It also suggests that language teachers must consider the individual differences
of the language learners. These individual differences (Cook 1993), (Ellis 1994) are also
known as ‘learner factors’ that influence the acquisition of L2. Some of them are ‘age,
appetite, intelligence, motivation and cognitive styles’ among others (Ellis 1994, p.17)
and they are significant in language teaching/learning studies.
Second, the literature of language studies may suggest some brilliant theories about
language teaching/learning in general, but it seems that these ideas may not work while
actually teaching English in classrooms, as they were supposed to do, unless individual
differences are considered.
Finally, we have to mention the undergraduate education of participant teachers. Except
T7, four of the other teachers graduated from language teaching departments of various
universities in Turkey. T7 graduated from a school which is similar to the combination
of Law and Political Sciences in the UK. In theory those who finish these schools are
supposed to serve either as deputy governor or head official of a district. If they cannot
get such a post and want to serve as teachers, they are appointed as English language
teachers. This raises the issue of language teaching by non-professionals [see 3.3.7. in

Chapter Five 104
Chapter 3]. It seemed that T7 and his classmates were given much help/support to learn
English because his sentence reveals it: “ our teacher knew that we had to learn
English”.
5.3.1.2. How Participant Teachers Teach English
The teachers graduated from different universities in Turkey and teach in three types of
schools - primary, vocational and language-based high schools. The curricula of these
schools may require them to use various approaches or methods while teaching English.
To that end one or two questions were asked about how they teach English during the
last interviews in 1999, these teachers revealed the following views. For instance, T2
responded to my question ‘how do you teach English at prep classes? as follows:
We first give [teach] sentences... later on we teach ‘to be’ in
Grammar and Practice lessons...We try to teach patterns and
idioms through sentences, we do not say ‘this is a passive’
[sentence], we teach them through dialogues... (int. 14/5/1999)
In T4’s view language must be taught:
Sentence by sentence and through dialogues [In his view] at the
beginning of teaching we [language teachers] must teach practical
things and sentences. We must teach the meaning of sentences,
but we must not teach the details,… (int. 12/5/1999)
The question for T5 to explore was, how she taught English in year four for the first
time. She stated that; “I teach by drawing on the board and use newspaper materials
and pictures, their [year four] subjects are simple, we teach the year for the first time
this year, there may be some shortcomings” (int. 13/5/1999).
T6’s answer to my question was that; “we teach vocabulary in prep and year one, but we
do not teach vocabulary any more if the class is year two and three…. (int. 26/3/1999).
“We teach English through sentences and dialogues, that is an induction approach”
(int.14/5/1999).
The following brief extract illustrates T7’s view of language teaching.
ET: what is the main principle of teaching English at prep
classes? Do you teach grammar? [this is, subject, this is object,
etc.] or do you teach sentences and dialogues?

Chapter Five 105
T7: No, no, teaching through grammar was in the past, we
teach practical, daily and useful things, we teach through
sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph and reading
text (int. 14/5/1999).
In general these teachers state that they teach English through the use of sentences,
dialogues and the use of reading parts of textbooks. We may conclude that these teachers
use an inductive approach which refers to the teaching of grammatical rules covertly in
sentences or dialogues (Fortune 1992, p.160). They also state that they do not teach the
rules of grammar prescriptively.
However, the transcriptions of my classroom observation show that these teachers used
many different methods and techniques. For instance, all the teachers used translation
[English to Turkish and vice versa] and explained grammatical rules, idioms and tenses
during the implementation of the action cycles in 1998 and 1999. The following are a
few of the examples. T4 “what is the meaning of ‘want’?” (obs. 5/5/1999), T6 “chance
to + verb1 + or chance of + verb1 + ING...” (obs. 5/5/1999). Note that a detailed
analysis of the language teaching situations before the initiation of the AR study is
provided in Chapter 8 [see section 8.1.2. to 8.1.8.].
5.3.2. Language Learning/Language Acquisition
Researchers use two key words -learning and acquisition- to explain this difference. For
instance Strevens (1977) & Klein (1990) state the same ideas about learning and
acquisition and maintain that acquisition refers to learning a language in ‘untutored and
spontaneous’ situations and activities without benefiting from teachers, whereas learning
a language refers to ‘tutored and guided’ activities with teachers.
Besides this, Yule (1993) explains the distinction between these terms as follows:
The term ‘acquisition’ ... refers to the gradual development of
ability in a language by using it naturally in communicative
situations. The term ‘learning’, however, applies to a conscious
process of accumulating knowledge of the vocabulary and
grammar of a language. (Mathematics, for example, is learnt, not
acquired.). (Yule 1993, p. 151)
However, Ellis (1995, p.6) does not make a distinction between these terms and
maintains that “I shall use [them] interchangeably”. For Fromkin & Rodman (1998,
p.356) the acquisition process is ‘innate linguistic ability’ that is explained by ‘universal

Chapter Five 106
grammar’ (UG) and “analogy, imitation and reinforcement theories” are not sufficient to
explain this process.
As a result, it is seen that views about language learning and acquisition centre around
‘conscious versus natural and tutored versus untutored’ language activities. It seems that
Harmer (1995) is right by saying that it is usually difficult to say whether someone has
learnt or acquired a piece of language.
5.3.3. First Language Acquisition (FLA) or (L1)
This part includes a brief explanation of FLA, but further discussion will be offered
about how children acquire/learn their L1 [see 5.3.5.]. First language is also known as
mother tongue and native language (Crystal 1998b). In Klein’s view (1990) FLA occurs
when the learner-usually a child- has been learning a language for the first time. For
Crystal (1998a, p. 119) L1 refers “to the language first acquired by a child”. He (1999)
also states that children need much help if L1 is to be achieved successfully.
5.3.4. Second Language (L2) or Foreign Language (FL)
A brief account of second language and foreign language can be stated as follows. For
instance, in Richards’ (1978) view, L2 refers to the study of inter-language(s) ( IL ) of
second and foreign language learners, yet FL refers to a language which is learnt to
communicate with the native speaker of that language.
For Klein (1990) the term L2 refers to a language which is acquired and used alongside
the L1 in daily and social environments, whereas the term FL refers to a language which
is acquired in a place in which it is not normally used in routine situations by the
learners of that place. In his view Latin is a foreign language among Danish people, but
French among the German-speaking Swiss population, English among many Hindus are
example of L2.
L2 refers to a language learnt apart from one’s native language (Cook 1993) and used in
daily and social environments (Klein 1990). That is, L2 “plays an instructional and
social role in the community”, whereas “FL is primarily learnt in classrooms and does
not play much role in the community of the language learners (Cook 1993). In his
example English is a foreign language for France and Japan and English is a second
language for those who live in the UK and United States (US), whose mother tongues

Chapter Five 107
are not English. In Crystal’s (1998b) view some distinction is made between the L2 and
FL, but this distinction is less used in the early 1990s.
As a result, it seems that language learners use the notion of L2 in daily and social
activities, whereas the language learners do not use the notion of FL in daily and social
life. Given the case, it seems that English is taught and learnt as a foreign language in
Turkey because it not used by most of the people in their daily life.
5.3.5. How Children Acquire/Learn Language
There are two types of view in the literature. The first is about the possibility of learning
a language without external help and the other is about the importance of external help.
For instance, Fromkin & Rodman (1998) provide some examples of historical research
that investigated whether or not children could develop their own language without
hearing any speech. Although the children used in the historical experiments uttered
only a few words, no more information was offered about how these children learnt or
used the other words in their life.
Those who defend the cognitive view can also be included in this group. Language
ability is, in this view, innate and there is not much need for initiatives to learn a
language. In this group researchers state that the child acquires a language as a result of
cognitive (mentalist) development and a “language acquisition device (LAD) and
creativity” play major roles in acquiring a language [ see Klein (1990), Radford (1992),
Cook (1993), Cook & Newson (1996) Fomkin & Rodman (1998)]. Some of the other
views about cognitive language learning/acquisition can be stated as follows.
Being healthy, both in terms of cognitive and social development, among others, is a
necessary condition for children to acquire their first language (Klein 1990). Being
healthy also refers to normal physical health (not disabled, handicapped, etc.). Besides
this, cognitive developments refer to a child’s brain development and social
development depends on living in a society and using its language in daily life.
The cognitive view also states that “...humans can be said to have a biological (genetic)
endowment...” (p. 407). and “language development in children occurs spontaneously
and does not require conscious instruction or reinforcement on the part of adults”
(Akmajian et al. 1990 p. 408).

Chapter Five 108
Cook (1993, p.22) explains this point by saying, “the language faculty is built-in to the
human mind... and all human languages have this in common because of the nature of
the human mind”. These common rules are called universal grammar (UG), and consist
of principles and parameters. The former refers to common rules shared by all the
languages in the world, whereas the latter refers to the variations of the principles among
languages. Cook & Newson (1996, p.106) also state that “UG is innate and ... is part of
the human genetic inheritance, a part of biology rather than psychology”. The concept of
innateness, in this view, refers to the creativity of the mind whereby “people regularly
understand and produce sentences that they have never heard before” (p.77).
Radford (1992) makes the point by saying that children are “genetically endowed with”
language ability (p.35) and “language acquisition is a creative activity” (p.45). These
researchers such as Akmaijan et al. (1990), Cook & Newson (1996), Radford (1992)
state that ‘tutoring, imitation, explanation, social interaction, correction theories and
parental correction of children’s mistakes’ do not help language acquisition very much.
The following is an example of this sort of mistake correction:
Child: Nobody don’t like me.
Adult: No, say ‘Nobody likes me’.
Child: Nobody don’t like me.
..............................................
(eight repetitions of this dialogue)
................................................
Adult: Now listen carefully, say, ‘nobody likes me’.
Child: Oh, nobody don’t likes me.
(McNeil 1970, p. 106)
The above example is not the only one illustrating adult correction. There are similar
examples in the literature about adult correction [see Yule (1993, p.135), Fromkin &
Rodman (1998, p.329), etc.].
At this point Kyriacou (1997), after explaining Ausubel’s (1968) Gagne’s (1985) and
Bruner’ (1966) ideas of learning theories [reception and discovery, rote and meaningful
learning], states that the approaches adopted by them are all based on the same model of
information processing. In this model learning takes place in three phases as follows:
Reception of Sensory Information Short Term Memory Long Term Memory

Chapter Five 109
By the same token, Piaget’s and Bandura’s theories are worth including here. In the
former there are four stages of cognitive development [sensori-motor 0-2 years, pre-
operational 2-7 years, concrete operational 7-11 years and formal operational 11-15
years]. Bandura’s view is called ‘social learning theory’ that refers to observing and
imitating (Davenport 1994). Similarly, the mentalist views state that children acquire the
language in a certain order. For instance, in Crystal’s (1998a) view children’s speech
development occurs in five stages. These are “basic biological noises (0-8 weeks),
cooing and laughing (8-20 weeks), vocal play (20-30 weeks), babbling (25-50 weeks)
and melodic utterances (9-18 months)” (p.238-9).
Mitchell & Myles (1998) provide the following rules for the L1acquisition:
- Children go through stages.
- These stages are very similar across children for a given
language,...
- These stages are similar across languages.
- Child language is rule governed and systematic,...
- Children are resistant to correction.
- Children’s processing capacity limits the number of rules they
can apply at any one time,...
(Mitchell & Myles 1998, p.45)
The cognitive view finally states that the responsibility of LAD for communication is
scientifically proved. Any damage to the Broca’s area of the brain reduces the ability to
speak and any damage to the Wernicke’s area of the brain reduces the ability to
comprehend the language [see Yule (1993) Fromkin & Rodman (1998), Crystal
(1998a)].
The other group of researchers state that language is acquired/learnt with the help of
method, approach, material, etc. For instance, Pavlov’s classical and Thorndike’s
operant conditioning, Skinner’s distinction between positive and negative reinforcement
theory are examples of the second group. For instance, learning takes place with the help
of stimulus, response and reinforcement in the behaviourist view and positive
reinforcement supports learning. The behaviourist view was used not only to explain
how behaviours are learnt, but also how L1 and L2 are learnt/acquired (Richards &
Rogers 1993, Davenport 1994, etc.).
In addition, Yule (1993, p.136) explains the necessity of external help as follow:

Chapter Five 110
A child who does not hear, or is not allowed to use language, will
learn no language. We have also stressed the importance of
‘cultural transmission’ (p.136)... whereby the language a child
learns is not genetically inherited, but is acquired in a particular
language-using environment... So in order to speak a language, a
child must be able to hear that language being used. ...however,
hearing language sounds in not enough... the crucial requirement...
is ... to interact with others via language.
(Yule 1993, p. 138)
He (ibid.) concludes that the language used by caretakers [parents, child-minder, etc.] is
an important element in children’s language acquisition. Moreover, Klein (1990) makes
the point by saying that “a child raised in complete darkness could never learn to see; by
analogy, a child deprived of speech input could not build up a grammar” (p.7).
Consequently, I tend to believe that creativity and the LAD are important elements that
enable spontaneous speech. It is also true that cognitive and social elements are equally
important. In this way people and the community in which children live determine the
concept of L1, L2 and FL. Finally, my observation about children acquiring a language
is that language is mostly an acquisition process, not a learning process. Having given an
overview of the basic terms used in language learning/teaching. The next section will
briefly explain the meaning of the approaches and methods used in language studies
before exploring their possible relationships (common patterns) with AR.
5.4. A Review of Major Approaches and Methods
Since language teaching activities are usually put into practice by the use of various
materials and theories which refer to ‘approaches, methods and techniques’, it seems
necessary to explain the meaning of these three terms. As stated earlier, these approaches
and methods have been the subject of extensive debate. That is why this review will be
brief, but my main observation about AR and language teaching shall be offered in see
section 5.5.
Although some (e.g. Lewis & Hill 1985) do not distinguish the above noted three terms,
the literature distinguishes these terms. Hence it is possible to see a few types of
classification. For instance, Allen & Campbell (1972, p.1) state that “Anthony’s
assumptions,..., are derived from the structural school”. For Chastain (1972)
behaviourism and cognitivism and for Hornby (1972) situational language teaching are
examples of approaches. On the other hand, although the audio-lingual view is accepted

Chapter Five 111
as an approach (Newmark & Diller 1972), the audio-lingual view is also seen as a
method (Rivers 1981).
Since the ALM is included in the structural approach and the CLT has been regarded as
an approach by British and American linguists as from the 1970 (Richards & Rogers
1993), this part takes Richards & Rogers’ views referring to ‘approach, method and
technique’ to assist the explanation.
For Anthony (1986, p.199) “...an approach is axiomatic...”, “a method is an overall
plan...and... procedural” (p.200) and “a technique is implementational...” (p.201). In
Richard & Rogers’ (1993, p.16) view there are three types of approaches when they are
considered in terms of linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, namely; the structural, the
functional and the interactional approaches. For them ‘design’ identifies the preparation,
the objectives of a method, selection and organisation of contents, tasks, teachers’ roles,
learners’ roles, etc. In their view ‘procedure’ indicates ‘moment to moment’
applications, practices to be done/used in classroom. So their view about approach and
method can be stated as follows:
5.4.1. The Structural Approach
The view that language is a system of structurally related elements
for the coding of meaning. The target learning is seen to be the
mastery of this system, which are generally defined in terms of
phonological units (e.g. phonemes), grammatical units (e.g.
clauses, phrases), etc. grammatical operations (e.g. adding,
shifting, etc.) and lexical items (e.g. function words and structure
words... (Richards & Rogers 1993, p. 17)
They also state the methods produced on the basis of the structural approach are the
ALM, the TPR (Total Physical Response) and the Silent Way. The views put forward by
the ALM method derived from behaviourist views of ‘stimulus, response and
reinforcement’. The ALM includes a combination of structural linguistic theory and
behaviourist psychology. Some of its main features are:
- Behaviour is verbal behaviour.
- Stimulus refers to taught/given materials about the language.
- Reinforcement increases the likelihood of learning.
- (Foreign) language learning is a mechanical habit formation.
- Grammar is taught inductively.
- Giving correct responses forms good habits.
- Dialogues and drills form the basis of language teaching.

Chapter Five 112
- Learners are viewed as organism that can be directed by skilled
training.
- Target language is used as a medium of instruction.
(Richards & Rogers 1993, pp. 44-63)
This method lost its importance after Chomsky and his followers rejected the structural
approach and proposed cognitive views [creativity and innateness] about language
learning, but later on the CLT regained its importance. As to the TPR, this method
includes a combination of ‘speech and action’. It is also based on “the trace theory” of
memory in psychology that holds the view that frequency and intensity are important for
recall. The TPR claims to help learners use right side of their brains although other
theories hold the opposite view. Some features of the TPR are:
- Grammar is taught inductively.
- Grammatical features and vocabulary are chosen according to the
situations to be used.
- Imperative structures are used and role-play centre on everyday
situations.
- The learners’ role is listening and performing.
(Demircan 1990, pp.221-223)
5.4.2. The Functional Approach
The view that language is a vehicle for the expression of
functional meaning... This theory emphasizes the semantic and
communicative dimension rather than merely the grammatical
characteristics of language and leads to a specification and
organisation of language teaching content by categories of
meaning and function rather than by elements of structures and
grammar. Wilkins’s Notional Syllabuses (1976) is an attempt to
spell out the implications of this view of language for syllabus
design. [The notional syllabus provides both elements of grammar
and vocabulary and specifies learners’ needs to communicate
[topics, notions and concepts].
(Richards & Rogers 1993, p.17)
This approach gives emphasis to the use of communication skills and the CLT and the
Natural Approach (NA) are the examples of the functional approach. Until 1960
situational language teaching (SLT) was used to teach English as a foreign language. In
CLT, the learning tasks are broken down into “portions or units” each of which
corresponds to a component of a learner’s needs. Hence Wilkins (1972) proposed his
understanding of language that gave emphasis to communication. The syllabus he
suggested included twelve notional and communicative categories. The former refers to

Chapter Five 113
time, sequence, quantity, matter, case, etc. whereas the latter refers to requests, denials,
offers, complaints (Wilkins 1990, pp.86-87). This innovation is also known as Notional-
Functional Approach and has been a source of syllabus studies. Some features of the
CLT features are:
- Communication is important in language teaching/learning.
- Exercises are used not to memorise, but to improve communication.
- Native language and translations are used when needed.
- Teachers help learners to motivate themselves.
- Learners through trial and error create language.
- The primary aim of language is for interaction and communication.
- Activities that involve real communication promote learning.
(Richards & Rogers 1993, pp.64-83)
5.4.3. The Interactional Approach
[This approach] sees language as a vehicle for the realisation of
interpersonal relations and for the performance of social
transactions between individuals. L
anguage is seen as a tool for
the creation and maintenance of social relations. [In this approach]
scope of inquiry include interactional analysis, conversation
analysis, and etnomethodology. ...[the theories of interaction give
emphasis to] include ‘the pattern of moves, acts, negotiation, and
interaction in conversation situations. [In this view] language
teaching content may be specified and organised by patterns of
exchange and interaction or may be left unspecified, to be shaped
by the inclinations of learners as interactors.
(Richards & Rogers 1993, p.17)
All of the above approaches employ structure and communication to a certain extent.
However, the ways of implementing these structures and communication activities vary
and this diversity gives each approach a different identity. For instance, the structural
approach stresses the importance of ‘pre-decided structures’ [mimicry memory, pattern
sentences, etc.]. Thus it can be seen as a one-dimensional approach. The functional
approach places communication activities [speech, talk, discourse, etc.] at the centre of
language teaching activities and unites communication with structure. Communication is
based on memorisation in the former approach whereas, in the latter communication is
meaningful and real and in this sense this approach can be seen as two-dimensional. The
interactional approach gives emphasis to ‘interaction’ as well as communication and
structure. Then it seems that this approach unites interaction and communication with
structure. In this sense this approach can be seen as three-dimensional. It can be argued
that the more dimensions an approach has, the better the language teaching. Having

Chapter Five 114
given a brief overview of the main approaches and methods, the next section makes an
attempt to reconcile [to find some common points] between AR and language teaching
theories.
5.5. Common Points Between AR and Language Teaching Theories
The author believes that a ‘compromise’ between AR and language teaching seems
necessary to find some common points (patterns) because there are many theoretical
approaches, methods and techniques in the literature of language studies. In addition, we
saw in Chapter 4 that the AR approach has its own claim that unifies ‘teaching and
researching’ at the same time (Elliott 1995). Given the case, it is assumed that finding
some common points among theories or methods can be useful while teaching English.
In this context these common points may derive from the adaptation of the features of
AR into language teaching theories. They may derive from the interpretation of the
features of AR in terms of language teaching theories. They may also originate from the
comparison of the features of AR and language teaching theories. I believe that one way
of discovering the common points of AR and language teaching theories is to compare
the features of AR with the features of each language teaching theory and method. To
that end, now let us go back to Chapter 4 and revisit the features of AR first. A brief
summary of these features is:
- The notion of AR is based on a bottom-up and democratic approach.
- This bottom-up process enables teachers to select their own research interest.
- AR usually deals with current practices and practical solutions.
- Participants are included or consulted in decision-making processes.
- Decisions are based on discussion and agreement.
- Teachers at schools must collaboratively undertake AR.
- AR always embodies action(s) and aims to bring about changes.
- External researchers at schools can also undertake AR.
- External researchers do not impose their research agenda on teachers.
- Topic to be studied is chosen by all participants.
- There is no hierarchy of relations among the participants.
[see the end of Chapter 4]
If we take the GTM as an example, it has the following features:

Chapter Five 115
- The aim of learning a foreign language is to read its literature.
- Reading and writing are more important than speaking and listening.
- Vocabulary selection comes from the reading text.
- The sentences in the text are the basic unit of teaching and learning.
- Translation is more important.
- Grammar is taught deductively.
- Language learners’ mother tongue is the medium of instruction.
(Richards & Rogers 1993, p. 4)
Now it is possible to make the following comments by comparing the features of AR
and GTM. For instance, the all participants in AR studies choose the topic, but the GTM
does not mention any idea about topic selection. That is, the question of ‘who chooses
the texts to be translated -teachers or students- is not known. If teachers choose texts
without understanding students’ likes and dislikes, this means that teachers impose their
decisions on students. This is contrary to the bottom-up process in AR studies.
If the sentences, paragraphs or texts h
ave more than one meaning [interpretation] in the
target language, whose translation -teachers’ or students’- is accepted as correct
translation? In short, it seems that the features of GTM do not seem to be consistent with
the features of AR.
If we take the ALM as another example, it [the ALM] has the following features:
- Emphasis is placed on listening and speaking skills.
- The use of mother tongue is avoided as much as possible.
- The ALM favours an implicit rather than explicit learning strategy.
- Emphasis is based on active and simple practices.
- Language learners try to learn the language through mimicry memorisation dialogues
and imitative repetition.
- Pattern drills are used as exemplary conversations.
(Stern 1984, pp.462-6)
Comparing ALM with AR suggest the following observations. Action strategies are
produced and implemented to address learners’ needs in AR studies, whereas learners
have to use pre-identified techniques such as memorisation, repetition and pattern drills

Chapter Five 116
in the ALM. Teachers choose the dialogues and drills. The use of pre-identified
techniques and exercises is also against the democratic principle of AR.
In addition, Demirel (1990) provides the following examples when teaching large
groups. Some of these techniques are “demonstration, question and answer, pair-work,
group-work, communication games, grammar games, etc.” (pp. 55-56). We know that
AR gives more emphasis to collaboration. The above-mentioned pair-work and group
work are also collaborative activities. If language teachers use pair-work or group-work
while teaching, this means that s/he covertly implements one of the features of AR. In
the same way, if the language teacher brings materials according to learners’ likes and
the teaches through pair-work and group work, this sort of activity (teaching) is similar
to the use of AR principles [features].
Consequently, it is possible to compare each language teaching approach, method and
technique, one by one, with the features of AR to see if AR and language teaching
theories share some points in common. However, comparing each method or technique
one by one with the features of AR is not practical because there are hundreds of
methods and techniques in the literature. In this context I made another attempt to
produce a set of rules that try to reconcile or refine both AR and language teaching
theories. In doing so the features of AR are adapted/interpreted in terms of language
teaching. As a result, a set of suggestive principles emerged. My effort to find some
common points between the two fields agrees with Gardner (1985), who recommends
promoting further developments and opening new horizons for theories. Hence the
following principles both implicitly reflect the features of the AR approach and explain
the principles of AR-based language teaching.
5.5.1. AR-based language teaching places values on individual learners.
This principle is in agreement with the bottom-up feature of AR and should be basic for
language teachers. That is, teachers should do a preliminary study to explore students
and their learning styles before teaching because each learner may have a different
personality and learning style because of age, attitude, motivation, personality traits,
family background, innate talent, etc. For instance, the participant teachers of this study
learnt English as follows; T2 was good at memorising new words. T4 learnt new words
by using them in pattern sentences. T5 liked translation modules, etc. Hence it seems
that the language teachers’ task is not to apply, for instance, the ALM, GTM, or other

Chapter Five 117
methods and techniques, but to learn pupils/students’ strengths, weaknesses and explore
the learning strategies of their students/pupils.
As such, the following are a few of the examples that indicate the importance of knowing
learners individually. For instance, Fathman (1975) investigated how children learn
English morphology and syntax and examined the relationships between age and the rate
of acquisition. Results showed that the older children were better in the production of
correct morphological and syntactic structures, whereas the younger children were better
in correct pronunciation. According to Ellis (1994, p.106) a general assumption about
age is that: “ starting age does not affect the route of SLA, but the rate of learning, both
the number of years and starting age affect the level of success”.
The next example also illustrates learner difference and it is about the influence of input
in language teaching. In Ellis’s (1994) view ‘input’ refers to everything given from the
target language. What the L2 learners get from the input is called ‘intake’. The common
idea is that input is miscellaneous and L2 learning depends on understandable input. For
instance, Henrichsen (1984) researched to test ‘sandhi-variation’ which refers to the
combination, contraction, assimilation and reduction of words in English such as ‘gonna,
wanna and hasta’. Results indicated that native speakers and high level ESL learners had
little difficulty in understanding these variations, whereas ESL learners at normal level
could not understand them.
The final examples of this principle are about ‘motivation’. For instance, Gardner &
MacIntyre (1991) investigated the effects of integrative and instrumental motivation on
the learning of French/English. Results showed that subjects with higher motivation
learned more words overall that did subjects with lower level and those who anticipated
possible financial reward learned more words than who did not. Likewise, Lukmani
(1972) researched a Marathi-speaking high school and found out that students were more
instrumentally motivated rather than integratively. As a result, the studies about age,
input and motivation among others tend to suggest that each learner has his/her own
weaknesses or strengths. So language teachers may explore these if they take a teacher-
researcher role and use the bottom-up element of AR.

Chapter Five 118
5.5.2. AR-based language teaching addresses learners’ needs
This principle also derives from the bottom-up feature of AR. After knowing language
learners individually, learning students’/pupils’ choices is important for the following
reasons. First, if teachers learn learners’ choices, it means that teachers address their
needs and this may increase learners’ success. It also means that learners can be
motivated more easily if teachers bring materials according to learners’ choices. It then
seems that the teacher’s task is to understand students’/pupils’ choices in their classroom
and consider putting those learners who have similar interests in one group.
In this case there may be several interest groups in one classroom. For instance, some
students may like studying materials about sports, some may like watching videos, and
others may like materials on music. Doing this sort of activity seems to be difficult in
practice, but this brings us to the question of the number of learners in each language
classroom. For instance, the classroom observed in Turkey had twenty to forty pupils.
Hence it seems the number of learners in each class must be small in language
classrooms if teachers are to run learner centred classrooms.
Second, knowing learners’ needs may also reveal which published materials are likely to
be appropriate. In this case, it is possible that learners may not like teachers’ bringing
pre-decided materials. For instance, In Seedhouse’s study (1995) learners’ were
interested in “to travel abroad and experience conversation with foreigners” (p.60). This
was practically impossible, but... a computer programme was produced which included
an imaginary story-like trip abroad and conversation with foreigners. This programme
was designed to involve the learners actively. He concludes that some learners learnt a
little, but some others learnt a lot about travel abroad and speaking to foreigners. This
example suggests that if language teaching activities address learners’ needs, the overall
outcome of these activities tend to be more positive. This example also suggests that
language teachers must bring materials in line with learners’ needs and AR supports the
idea of addressing learners’ needs.
A final note about this principle can be explained as follows. In Chapter 4 and under the
Types of AR, it was claimed that those action models that employ more than one action
plan at a time were better than all others. For instance, some researchers (e.g. Elliott
1991, Whitehead 1989) advocate putting only one action plan into practice, whereas
others (e.g. Stronach 1986) suggest that several action plans be put into practice at a

Chapter Five 119
time. Here the aim of explaining differences among the AR models is to make an
observation, not to criticise any model blindly. So considering the fact that there were 20
to 40 pupils in the classrooms I observed in Turkey, it seems that preparing and
implementing only one action plan at a time may not address all pupils’ needs. That is, if
there are 20 to 40 pupils in a classroom, it is possible that each pupil may have a
different learning strategy. In this case the use of only one action plan may be
insufficient for 20 to 40 pupils in a classroom.
5.5.3. AR-based language teaching uses qualitative approaches for development
Addressing language learners’ needs and knowing them individually are important. So
the questions arise as to how best we can learn (explore) language learners’ needs and
how we can know each learner individually. One way of exploring learners’ needs, likes,
dislikes etc. is to use a qualitative approach which aims to “understand the meaning of
events and interactions…” (Bogdan & Biklen (1992, p. 35), “to explore social realities...
to theories” (Sarantakos 1998, p.l5). In this way the research is conducted inductively
and researchers explore theories at the end of the study. A second way of exploring
learners’ needs and to know learners is to employ the quantitative approach that usually
“starts with a theory” (Robson 1995, p.18). In this approach researchers have some pre-
suppositions and test these on learners (subjects). At the end data is usually analysed and
displayed statistically and the outcome of the research is usually stated quantitatively,
e.g. in terms of percentage.
One may ask at this point the benefits of using an inductive approach to AR-based
language teaching. For instance, Philpott’s (1993) interest was to look into possible
relationships between the seating patterns of students in classroom and their observed
attitudes towards class activities. He was teaching English in Corduba, southern Spain
when he was undertaking that AR. He tested fifteen hypotheses, but only some of them
were verified. In his view students’ seating arrangements in the classroom are important.
He states the necessity of moving around the classroom more to eliminate the hidden
zones and “to chase teacher-shy’ pupils” (p. 208). In another study Day (1984) aimed to
research the relationship between student participation in the ESL classroom and
proficiency in English, the use of the target language outside the classroom and field
sensitivity. So he posed seven hypotheses, employed 58 subjects from Asia and collected
data through close tests, questionnaires and oral interviews. The results indicated no

Chapter Five 120
significant relationship between classroom participation and the use of the target
language away from the classroom.
Consequently, we can argue that if research started with hypotheses, research results do
not always verify these hypotheses, but if researchers produce hypotheses or statements
about the findings at the end, they do not treat the participants as the subject of an
experiment. In AR and language teaching cases, the use of a quantitative approach may
not be useful while exploring learners’ needs and knowing them individually, whereas
this is less of a problem if the qualitative approach is used.
5.5.4. AR-based language teaching does not rely upon prescriptive rules
There are countless methods, approaches and techniques (the GTM, ALM, etc.) in the
literature of language studies. It is also known that each of these methods or approaches
claims to be the best one. For instance, we saw that the behaviourist approach to
language teaching was criticised by the cognitive approach. Likewise, Richards &
Rogers (1993) state that some theorists questioned and rejected the GTM towards the
mid-nineteen century. That is why the question was asked ‘can we consider the GTM as
out of date...?’ while explaining the rationale of this chapter [see 5.1.].
Having given an overview of the language teaching tools [see 5.4. A Review of Major
Approaches and Method], the author believes that the AR-based language teaching does
not consider any method, techniques as out of date, insufficient, or irrelevant in advance.
This principle does not also have any bias or reservations for language teaching theories
or tools. The choice of methods to be used by teachers comes from language learners
themselves. Teachers can explore these methods by asking them. For instance, some
learners may learn the target language through the translation method as T5 did when he
was an undergraduate at the university. Or some learners may learn through repetition
and pattern sentences although the behaviourist approach is widely criticised by
mentalists. The teacher’s prime task is to explore how learners learn, not to impose
his/her method or technique, etc. The next stage is to use the desired method/technique
while teaching.
Similarly, the participant teachers and I did not review the literature to use famous
researchers’ or linguists’ views or recent articles to teach the selected topic-vocabulary
teaching-. Instead we collected data about pupils’ choices of vocabulary teaching. After

Chapter Five 121
analysing data and producing action plans, we tried to teach the selected topic on the
basis of produced action plans. The result of this trial was positive in general. [see
section in 8.5.]. Briefly, language learners themselves identify the methods, techniques,
materials that will be used in AR-based language teaching sessions. To conclude, AR-
based language teaching does not give any/much credit for any method or technique [in
advance] to be used while teaching.
5.5.5. AR-based language teaching always consults learners
Teachers transfer the knowledge they know through lessons, course books, etc. to the
learners, but teachers are not seen in a superior position in the classroom. Rather, this
principle wants teachers to consult learners and negotiate with them. This consultation
may include choosing teaching materials, methods or techniques to be used. Through
consultation teachers understand each learner’s learning style and produce action
strategies in line with their choices. In addition, teachers’ consultation refers to the
empowerment of learners to run learner-centred teaching sessions. In other words,
teachers recognise the freedom of learners when they negotiate with learners. Consulting
learners and empowering emerge as a result of collaboration that is one of the major
principles of AR.
The following examples explain the importance of negotiating with learners. Although I
included the following AR studies while reviewing the literature of AR on language
teaching [ see 5.2.], revisiting a few of them is necessary to explain this principle. For
instance, Johnstone (1990) states that staff and curriculum developments occur if
teachers are empowered to identify their needs. Likewise, Laidlaw (1994) supervised her
student, Sarah, in a democratic atmosphere and both learnt from their learning processes.
Similarly, Mok’s (1997) AR study aimed at improving language teaching by
empowering students. Briefly, teachers’ negotiation with learners possibly increases the
learners’ motivation to learn the language.
5.5.6. AR-based language teaching is a democratic approach.
The importance of knowing learners individually has been stressed as a necessary task
for teachers. That is, it was stated that learners should have some freedom to choose their
wants and don’ts. Yet again, it was also stated that this approach does not consider a
classroom of students as a group or flock. Rather, it tries to explore strengths and
weaknesses of each learner and to produce action plans to overcome the weaknesses. In

Chapter Five 122
doing so teachers are expected to consult learners while choosing materials, using
methods or techniques. Inflicting pre-decided decisions on learners is similar to writing
prescriptions for patients without examining them. So the discovery process of the
illness inevitably requires consulting the patients. As a result, consulting learners while
learning about language learners themselves, their needs, their learning styles and
involving them in decision making processes can be seen as a democratic approach in
AR studies (e.g. Allport 1948)15
. Briefly the democratic principle of AR embodies the
above-mentioned five articles and is also valid for AR-based language teaching.
5.6. Conclusion
The aim of this chapter was to explore some common points between AR and language
teaching theories. It seemed that previous studies have not made such an attempt. So, I
have produced and suggested six principles by reconciling and refining AR and language
teaching theories in order to teach English more successfully. In one view, these
principles can be seen as ideas about ‘good or effective language teaching’.
However, it is known that similar views such as ‘need analysis, individual differences,
etc. in language studies have been referred to. That is, one may analyse learners’ needs
and put them into practice. So we can call this two step activity. However, the AR
approach is more complex compared to needs analysis. AR is a cyclical approach, and
includes more steps in each cycle. AR is also a systematic study and is a combination of
teaching and researching. So the teaching part of AR involves knowing the methodology
of teaching and the researching part of AR involves the evaluation and assessment of
teaching activities.
In the same way the importance of this chapter can be restated by reviewing the third
question, stated in Chapter 1, as follows. In other words, “can we always [or still]
consider the GTM as being out of date and the CLT as being the best model? This
chapter has indicated that there is little credit for methods or theories in advance. This is
because language learners’ strengths and weaknesses identify the methods, materials and
techniques that would be most appropriate to use.
15
Allport is the author who wrote the Introduction of Lewin’s (1948) book.

Chapter Five 123
In the Third Chapter it seemed that knowing the research context was important before
initiating a study there, and it seemed that centralised policies and practices were
obstacles to the implementation of AR studies in Turkey.
In the Fourth Chapter it also seemed that the introduction of an AR approach to research
contexts seemed to be necessary when the contexts have not experienced AR before. A
review of the AR literature did not answer the questions about the introduction and
initiation of AR studies and language teaching.
In this chapter some potential common points between AR and language teaching
theories were produced and proposed for teaching English more successfully. Having
read the stories of this triangle -the context, the AR approach and English language
teaching-, the next part [Part Three] explains the implementational process, procedures
and methodology of the study. We begin with the introduction of Action cycles and
models.

124
PART THREE
CHAPTER SIX
CHAPTER SEVEN

Chapter Six 125
CHAPTER SIX
INTRODUCTION OF ACTION MODELS AND
ACTION CYCLES
That is, an event or process can be neither interpreted nor
understood until it has been well described.
(Denzin, N. K. (1998, p. 323)
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the structure of the study, in terms
of the action models, action cycles, and action plans put into practice in 1997, 1998 and
1999. The chapter begins by discussing definitions of cycles. It goes on to explain how
the study was a combination of first order and second order action research. I describe
how a SOAR was undertaken while implementing the imagined solutions of the FOAR.
It is important to note here that I do not have the intention of putting a sharp and
distinguishing line between the FOAR and SOAR; rather I move between the FOAR and
SOAR as needed. The action cycles and plans of the first and second order studies
complement one another. The chapter concludes by discussing some key issues which
emerged from the field studies.
6.1. Starting Point of Action Cycles
The starting point in AR studies usually refers to the first thing that must be done and is
usually identified, as has been stated in Chapter 4, according to employed action cycles,
action researchers’ interests, etc. The starting point is defined in a variety of different
ways by individual researchers. For Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) and Elliott (1991) the
starting point is defined in terms of a general interest. Altrichter et al (1993) refer to
interests, problems and unclear points, while McNiff et al. (1996) locate the starting
point in teachers’ interests and objectives.
As stated in Chapter 1, this study can also be called a mixture of FOAR and SOAR. This
is because this research had both general and specific objectives. The general objectives
refer to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th research questions [see p.4 in Chapter 1],
investigated and pursued by the researcher himself, whereas the specific objective of this

Chapter Six 126
study refers to the 4th
research question [see p.4 in Chapter 1], put into practice by the
researcher himself and the participant teachers of this study. In this sense it can be
argued that the use and implementation of the general objectives formed my FOAR,
whereas the investigation of the specific objective with the participant teachers formed
my SOAR. So the SOAR was embedded in the FOAR in which my position in
undertaking the SOAR was to act as external facilitator or critical friend.
This meant that the study used two models of AR at the same time, in investigating the
above stated general and specific objectives. Hence it was assumed that the general
objectives of the study should be investigated/explored by the use of Whitehead’s (1989)
model of AR. This is because his (1989) model starts the AR study with a problem and
this model was appropriate for the initiation of the FOAR. On the other hand, the
specific objective of the study was investigated by the use of Somekh’s (1989) and
McBride’s (1995) models of AR because models give emphasis to collect data from the
researched.
It should be noted here that there are various views about the appropriate length of each
action cycle, lasting from one week to one year (Sanger 1986, Elliott 1991). While
undertaking this AR study, my aim was to finish each action cycle in one year [e.g. from
1/1/1997 to 31/12/1997]. That is, the activities occurring within each action cycle were
finished in one year. The FOAR had three cycles, therefore, while the SOAR had two
cycles, over the three years of the study. The remaining part of this chapter will explain
these models respectively. However, a brief and embedded review of these cycles might
be useful at the outset. Note that the big cycle refers to my FOAR and the small cycle
refers to my SOAR. The following figure is an example of action cycles used in 1998.
1. Problem
2. Imagining
Solutions
5. Reflecting
and Re-planning
4. Evaluating
Actions
3. Enacting
Solutions
1st
cycle
of the
SOAR

Chapter Six 127
6.2. Action Cycles and Action Plans (1997)
Whitehead (1989) defines AR as “a living form of theory” in the sense that teacher
researchers present their claims to indicate ‘how and why’ they overcome practical
educational problems. In doing so teachers [researchers] use the following cyclical AR
model that consists of five phases:
I experience a problem when….
I imagine a solution to my problem.
I act in the direction of my solutions.
I evaluate the outcomes of my actions.
I modify my problem/ideas/actions in the light of my evaluation.
(Whitehead 1989, p.43).
Although the above-mentioned model was used to pursue my general objectives by
undertaking a FOAR, it was adapted according to my needs. For instance, Whitehead
(1989) seems to investigate only one problem each time, but my study dealt with several
problems at the same time, as will be seen below. Besides this, it seems that action
researchers themselves imagine solutions to problems in Whitehead’s (1985) model,
while Somekh (1989) and McBride (1995) give emphasis to the problems and solutions
of the practitioners as from the second step of each action cycle. That is why the latter
models were used while conducting my SOAR. However, I do not have any intention of
claiming that Whitehead’s (1989) model must be used while undertaking FOAR and
Somekh’s (1989) and (McBride’s 1995) models must be used while undertaking SOAR
studies.
The starting point of my FOAR study was thus identified differently than that of the
SOAR. This is because I myself identified the starting point of my FOAR. This starting
point also constituted my reasons for undertaking this Ph.D. This point refers to the
rationale for undertaking this study too. As will be remembered, these starting points
were explained in Chapter 1 and 2. To recapitulate, some of these were: lack of AR
study in the research context, language teachers’ unawareness of the teachers as
researchers movement, traditional methods of language teaching sessions, etc. For
instance, sixteen teachers were interviewed during my master’s study, but none of them
were aware of AR (Tomakin 1996). In addition, the quality of teachers’ expertise, and of
English textbooks, assessment of pupils, etc. were relevant at the diagnostic stage.
Hence, I stated my concerns at the outset of the study as ‘experiencing problems’.

Chapter Six 128
Briefly, the statement of problems formed the ‘starting point of my FOAR’ in 1997 and
can be briefly summarised as follows:
FOAR [1997] (First Cycle)
1st
step:
I experienced problems - Lack of AR studies in Turkey,
- Teachers' unawareness of AR,[MA]
- Traditional method of language teaching
…………………………
After identifying the starting point of FOAR, the imagined solutions constituted the
second phase of the FOAR study. In fact some of the of imagined solutions to the
experienced problems can also be traced back to my master’s study. This is because my
ideas of language teaching began to change during this MA study. In particular the
influence of the module - Research Methods for English Language Teachers - cannot be
ignored. Some other solutions were the ideas about undertaking a Ph.D. study,
registering with a university, undertaking an actual AR study, etc. With these changes
language teaching was no longer seen as the activities of doing translation exercises, rote
learning, memorising or drilling as seen in Chapter 2, but as a form of research-based
approach that unites teaching and researching (Elliott 1995).
In particular, the imagination of solutions to problems became more specific after
registering with the UEA, School of Education and Professional Development. At this
stage the imagined solutions not only sought answers to the above mentioned problems,
but also tried to satisfy the requirement of undertaking/getting an academic degree. For
instance, one of the imagined solutions, as stated in Chapter 1, was to undertake an
actual AR study in Turkey, but this solution, being a part of my FOAR study, remained
theoretical until it had been put into practice.
It is also necessary to explain here that some of the imagined solutions emerged while
conducting field studies. Some of the imagined solutions were, for instance, to explore
the contextual factors that support or prevent AR studies, to introduce AR study to t
he
participant teachers before initiating an actual AR study, and to explore the views about
introduction and initiation of AR studies in various contexts for the first time, etc.
Among the above mentioned solutions, the various activities involved in conducting
field studies were a few of the immediate actions put into practice before initiating the

Chapter Six 129
study. The rest of the imagined solutions were put into practice step by step. Thus far,
the imagined solutions of FOAR can be summarised as follows:
FOAR [1997]
2nd
Step:
I imagined solutions - To undertake an actual AR study in Turkey,
- To conduct field studies,
- To introduce the notion of AR,
- To choose a topic to study,
- To explore contextual factors,
- To explore views of introducing and
initiating AR studies in various contexts for the
first time,
- To explore common points of AR and language
teaching theories.
To pursue the imagined solutions I put them into practice individually. That is, it was not
possible to initiate an actual AR study immediately without undertaking field studies. To
that end two field studies were undertaken in 1997 to identify the current situation of
English language teaching, to select potential participants and problematic areas in
English, etc. Besides this, the production of written materials on AR was among the
imagined solutions. Note again that I was the actor of both the FOAR and SOAR, while
the participant teachers were the actors of the SOAR. The following is the 3rd
step of
FOAR and a brief account of the enacted solutions can be stated as follows:
FOAR [1997]
3rd
Step:
I enacted imagined solutions - Undertaking the FFW,
- Preparing written materials about AR,
and giving them to the participant
teachers,
- Undertaking the SFW,
………………………,
Third Step: The First Field Work
The FFW lasted about one month -25 March-27 April 1997- and investigated the choice
of potential participants and possible research areas. These areas were anticipated as

Chapter Six 130
curriculum change, inset activity, new syllabus design on a trial basis, or a collaborative
study with a language-teaching department of a university.
Since there are always “gatekeepers” [head teachers, LEA, etc.] in research contexts, it is
necessary to get their permission before entering a school or classroom (Hornsby-Smith
1993). For example, two head teachers [MI, SK] had answered my enquiries about
trying a new syllabus or curriculum change negatively. In their view “if books have not
been approved by the MOE, they are not used in schools”. The following diary note
also shows the power of gatekeepers at the research site. I wrote it after visiting the
MOE in 1999 where I sought to learn the current number and shortage of English
language teachers.
When I demanded that information, I was told to go from one
department to another. Finally, I was told to go to the ground
floor and see the head. After introducing myself and explaining
my reasons, she asked “why, where you do use that information”,
from which institution do you come from etc.”. After 10 minutes
of question and answer, she took me to her officers’ room on the
right. This head whispered in one officer’s ear, and she told me to
sit down and wait a few minutes. She logged on to her computer,
and started typing, but I was keeping an eye on the computer
screen. Some time later she said, the number of English language
teachers is 13,942, 4,360 of them serve at primary schools and
the rest at high schools... But the computer screen was ‘empty’,
that is, she wrote some code words (I think a password), pressed
the ‘enter’ key, she repeated this several times and told me the
above mentioned numbers. I think I was misinformed.
(diary, 6/4/1999, time:15:50)
The above stated two examples indicate the main reasons for undertaking the FFW. For
instance, if I chose an area without considering the possibility of getting permission from
the authorities in Turkey, it was likely that I would experience some difficulties in
getting permission. Hence the following tasks were carried out during the FFW:
-Six English language teachers, two head teachers, a head of a language teaching
department, a deputy head of the LEA and a member of staff serving at the MOE were
interviewed.
-English language teachers’ views of AR and problematic topics in teaching
English were collected.
-Pupils’ views of problematic topics in learning English were collected.
-Teachers were required to fill in a questionnaire to discover their options for a
potential local in-service activity.

Chapter Six 131
For instance, some interview questions aimed to explore whether or not teachers were
aware of AR. Although my master’s study had suggested that they were not aware of
AR, it was necessary to seek further confirmation of this. To that end two questions were
about AR. The remainder were about Inset activities. That is, no further question was
asked about the elements, objectives, stages, etc. of AR at this stage. The questions
about AR were worded as follows; [see appendix F].
Q-6) Have you joined or undertaken any research so far? i.e. curriculum study, action
research, etc.
Q-7) If you were given a chance, would you like to undertake a research project that
might last, at least, one year?
After interviewing six teachers, - two of whom were novices - and analysing the data,
the findings of the data were presented as brief ‘statements’ (Altrichter et al. (1993). It
was found that these teachers too, as had occurred in the MA study, were not aware of
AR. For example, the teachers’ answers to the above mentioned 6th
question can be
summarised as follows; [see appendix G for other findings].
A-6) None of the respondent teachers were involved in a research project or did
an AR study. Some of them want to join a research project on the condition
that research materials are supplied.
As can be seen from appendix F, most of the questions in the questionnaire were about
the organisation, and evaluation of Inset activities in Turkey. Having identified teachers’
lack of awareness of AR, I had considered running a short-term local Inset activity to
introduce the notion of AR to teachers. The intention was to prepare teachers for the
study before initiating the AR study in Turkey. However, the interviews with head
teachers, gave me the impression, as noted above, that getting legal permission from the
MOE to try even a small scale syllabus at some schools seemed unlikely in the heavily
bureaucratic system.
Third Step: The Choice of Participants
During this FFW a questionnaire was designed and used to choose potential Inset
participants [my research participants]. The following table is an extract from that
questionnaire [see appendix G to review the questionnaire; see section 7.4. in Chapter 7
for more information about the selection of participants].

Chapter Six 132
QUESTIONNAIRE 1
The following are some reasons why you might attend an in-service course. Please tick
three from the list that are most appropriate for your choice.
a) to improve work experience.
b) to learn how to use a computer.
c) to learn how to use a computer in teaching.
d) to learn research methods and to become a teacher researcher.
e) to be familiar with previous methods (ALM, GTM, DM, CLT, etc.).
f) to revise teaching techniques (pair-work, group work etc.).
g) to meet other colleagues.
h) to share and benefit from other colleagues’ experiences.
i) to have a change in another city.
.......................................................................................
While preparing the elements of this questionnaire, a few options relating to the features
of AR together were included. Appendix G indicates that questionnaire included 25
options in total and the options - (d), (h), (o), and (r) - referred to the features of AR. The
reason for including some options about the features of AR was to choose those teachers
who had some interest in learning AR or joining in an AR study. The overall outcome of
that questionnaire appeared as follows [Note that each teacher was required to tick off
three options].
Teachers’ Choices for A Potential Project or Inset
Teachers’ Choices Nr. of Teachers
a) to learn research methods and to become a teacher researcher......3
b) to develop a problem solving approach to student learning...........2
c) to pursue relevant issues.................................................................4
d) to improve work experience...........................................................5
e) to buy some audio visual materials.................................................1
f) to become a reflective teacher.........................................................3
g) to revise technique... ..................................................................2
h) to share and benefit from other colleagues’ experience..................4
i) to collect some EFL materials..........................................................1
j) to attend social and cultural activities in this city............................2
k) to learn how to use computers in teaching......................................2
l) to understand the cultural background of students...........................1
Third Step: Identifying Problematic Areas in English
Another activity conducted during this FFW was the exploration of teachers’ and pupils’
views of ‘problematic topics’ in English. Identifying these topics seemed to be important

Chapter Six 133
because it was anticipated that identifying potential [problematic] areas would help me
when I had a meeting with participant teachers to choose the focus of my SOAR.
As seen in Chapter 4, identifying the starting points in AR studies is important. To
identify potential problematic areas, each volunteer teacher and pupil completed a
questionnaire. The following is a short extract taken from the teachers’ and pupils’
questionnaires [see appendices D and E].
QUESTIONNAIRE 2
Teachers’ reflections on problematic issues in English language teaching
When I teach English to children (students/pupils) in any classroom actively, the
problems I usually have are: (that is, learners have difficulty in understanding the
following)...
a) b)
...............................................................
QUESTIONNAIRE 3
Learners’ (pupils, students) reflections on problematic issues in learning a
foreign (English) language.
When I study (learn) English by myself, at home, library, school etc. or while my
teacher(s) is/are explaining the lessons in the classroom, the difficulties in understanding
the lessons are...
a) b)
..........................................................................
After coding teachers’ views of problematic areas in English and putting similar
responses in one group, the following table was constructed. Any of these topics could,
in principle, have been the focus of a SOAR study [see appendix H for the extended
views of teachers].
Teachers’ Views on Problematic Areas in English
Problems Nr. of Teachers
Communication skills..............................................................5
Lack of Audio Visual aids.......................................................1
Pronunciation...........................................................................4
Students’ cultural environment................................................1
Word order...............................................................................2
Wrong usage of tenses.............................................................1
Vocabulary teaching................................................................2
..............................................................................................etc.

Chapter Six 134
Similarly, after coding learners’ views, the following was tabulated. This also meant
that any of these topics could have been chosen and studied [see appendix I for the
extended views of learners].
Students’ Views on Problematic Areas in English
Problems Nr. of Pupils
Vocabulary learning....................................................................6
Understanding text......................................................................2
Wrong usage of modals...............................................................2
Wrong usage of tenses.................................................................3
Pronunciation................................................................................6
...................................................................................................etc.
As a result, the following emerged from the first field work:
- I chose potential research participants.
- I identified problematic topics in English, in terms of teachers and pupils.
- I learnt the possibility of running a short-term local Inset activity.
- I learnt the impossibility of doing a curriculum study or a syllabus design in schools.
- I learnt the impossibility of undertaking an AR study with a university departmen.
- I was unable to choose a topic.
- Interviewed teachers were not aware of AR, or its elements.
Back to the UK: After returning from the research site, on the one hand, I analysed data.
On the other hand, I went on reading various materials and was puzzled by ideas and
research models. I pondered some time over each new idea that came to my mind. For
example, the following diary note reflects my initial idea about AR as follows:
Some researchers have stressed behaviour change; ...Stenhouse
(1982,p.9) states that “by observing is meant perceiving
appearances, events, or behaviour (including speech)”. Cohen &
Manion (1996:192) state that “...action research chiefly relies on
observational and behavioural data”…Nowadays, I’m speculating
about two types of ‘patterns or behaviours’. One is routine (usual)
and the other is investigative ones.
(diary, 18/ 7/1997, p.5)
My initial plan about AR was to use an experimental research design along these lines.
To that end I created examples of ‘routine behaviours and investigative behaviours’ by
using Galton’s (1978) book - British Mirrors - which offers various types of behaviours.
[see appendix J ]. However, my idea of using a pre-decided tally sheet changed during
the SFW [see the SFW below].

Chapter Six 135
Third Step: Introduction of AR
In considering the starting points of AR studies some useful views were encountered
accidentally. For instance, Bennett (1996, pp.76-85), who saw a problematic relationship
‘between subject knowledge and teaching performance’, stated one of these. For him
“appropriate knowledge would appear to be a necessary, but not a sufficient, basis for
competent teaching performances”. He maintained that “teachers cannot teach what they
do not know ... , but neither can they teach well what they know without the other
knowledge bases for teaching ...” (p.81). Bennett’s idea, for some, may be wrong or it
can be criticised, but I wrote the following note in my diary after reading it.
[ agreeing with that idea] ...why have I not read any material on
AR for 30 years of my life? Why did I not initiate and implement
an AR study while I was teaching at a high school in 1993?
Because I did not know what AR is, its objectives, steps, etc. at
that time. Because I did/could not find any material on AR and
did not read any material about educational AR. ...I need to know
what AR is to implement it.…so teachers need to know what it
is,…its objectives…etc. (diary, 1/8/1997, p. 9)
Third Step: Production of Study Materials on AR
Until I read the above-mentioned idea I was not sure how best to proceed. That idea
served like a bridge to cross the river. That idea also gave me some confidence and I
started to produce some study materials about AR, its objectives, stages, models, data
collection techniques etc. The intention was to give these materials to the teachers, to
prepare them for the study and to make them "context-wise". It was also assumed that
we could study these materials during a local Inset or at a workshop. Again at this point
it could be argued that we do not have to prepare teachers before involving them in AR
studies. This idea may be valid; however I continued to produce those materials [see 6.5.
below for further discussion of this point.
The materials produced during the summer of 1997 aimed to introduce AR theoretically
to teachers and consisted of 25 short sessions. Each session aimed to teach/explain one
topic in one or two pages with an example. For instance, session one was about ‘sources
of guidelines for ethical issues’, session two was about ‘keeping a research diary’,
session three was about ‘definition of AR’, etc. [see appendix K to review the contents
of those sessions ].

Chapter Six 136
The production of the study materials took a couple of months during the summer of
1997. I gave these materials to the participant teachers during my SFW, but I did not
have any chance to explain/study them with teachers because of double session teaching,
teachers’ heavy work loads, etc. So far the focus of this [Ph.D.] study was still unclear
because I was unable to have a meeting with participant teachers to choose a topic to
study. In addition, I had gained no ideas about what happens inside the classrooms and
how English language teachers taught English in classrooms during my FFW. In order to
investigate the language teaching conditions in classrooms and to identify a topic to
study another fieldwork was undertaken at the end of 1997.
Third Step: The Second Field Work (SFW)
Although the MA and FFW studies provided some information about the research site,
potential topics, teachers’ and pupils’ choices, etc., these studies also left me with some
dissatisfaction. The reason was that I had not been to classrooms yet and had no idea
about how language teachers teach, what sort of materials they use, why they teach in a
particular way etc. Hence the main motivation to undertake another field work was to:
- choose a research topic,
- do classroom observations of language teaching situations,
The necessity of describing the situations in the research context before implementing
action plans had been stated by researchers (e.g. Ebbutt 1985, Elliott 1991 and others). A
detailed explanation of the pre-stage of the research is explained in Chapter 8, [see 8.1.2.
to 8.1.8.] but I turn now to the second phase of field work and classroom observations.
During these observations my interest was to record events, occurrences, teacher
initiated activities in my research diary. For instance, Miles & Huberman (1994b)
explain the necessity of observing actions in qualitative research as follows:
Qualitative data are not so much about “behaviour” as they are
about actions ... those actions always occur in specific situations
within a social and historical context,... (p.10). [Qualitative data]
focus on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings,
so that we have a strong handle on what “real life” is like.
(Miles & Huberman 1994b, p.10)
So the SFW was conducted from 10/11/1997 to 15/12/1997, during which time the
following tasks were carried out.

Chapter Six 137
- Legal permission from the LEA and the governor of Ordu was obtained to enter
classrooms and 31 classroom observations were undertaken [see appendix L].
- The ethical rules of this study were identified and a copy of these rules was given to
each participant teacher [see Chapter Eight 7.5.].
- A ‘research diary and lever arch file’ was given to each participant to encourage him
or her to write their views and keep the materials produced.
After obtaining legal permission to enter classrooms and giving a diary to each
participant teacher, I wrote a ‘note’ on the first page of the diaries. That note aimed to
explore some of the significant teaching experiences of the participant teachers. After
collecting and collating teachers’ language teaching experiences in the form of a report
[case report 6], a copy of it was given to each participant teacher before I returned to
Britain, so that they might read and benefit from each other’s experience. A brief
account of this report is provided in Chapter 8 [see 8.1.6.].
Besides this, I kept a reflective diary while I was observing classrooms. Although I was
initially influenced by the ideas of Stenhouse (1982) and Cohen & Manion (1996) on
behaviour change in AR, after considering counter claims, I decided not to use the tally
sheets that were intended to be used during my classroom observations (diary, 7/81997,
p.11). If I had used them, I would have collected a limited amount of data that might
possibly not describe the language teaching situations in sufficient detail.
The following diary note also indicates how my thinking changed from structured to
unstructured observation. That is, pre-decided tally sheets were prepared and used
several times at the outset of observations, but I stopped using them after a few trials.
… my main focus in these observations is teacher initiated
actions, its types, frequency of these actions, etc.
(diary, 7 /11/1997, p. 13)
After realising that structured observation would limit the scope of data collection, I
wrote the following diary note about my final decision as follows:
I decided to record/jot down all the occurrences in the observed
classrooms. In other words, during this fieldwork (observations), I
have not attempted to classify teachers as ‘good teachers, effective
teachers, or reflective teachers etc., but I have identified a very
general question to carry on the observations. What do the English
language teachers do while teaching English in classrooms?

Chapter Six 138
However, since my main concern is on teacher-initiated actions,
observational notes probably will be in the form of:
T (teachers) asks questions, accepts correct answers.
T refuses wrong answers....
T checks the attendance sheet.
T explains rules in Turkish/ in English etc.
(diary, 14/11/1997, p. 14)
During this SFW seven teachers’ language teaching sessions were observed 31 times in
four types of schools [see appendix M]. Since I did not use a pre-decided plan about how
many times I would observe classrooms, I tried to observe teachers’ sessions as much as
possible. All of the observed lessons were recorded, some documents were collected and
pictures were taken.
Back to Britain: After finishing observations in mid-December in 1997 and returning to
the UK, first of all the data was transcribed and translated into English. Then, Ireland &
Russel’s (1978) ideas were used in analysing and reporting data. This was because the
quantity of data was huge and I wanted to represent the findings as briefly and concisely
as possible. Ireland & Russel (1978) suggest the following steps for analysing data:
- Tape record a lesson ... ,
- Read through the transcript, looking for patterns, ...
regularities of behaviour … ,
- State these patterns in descriptive terms.
- Do not use interpretative language.
(Ireland & Russel 1978, p.21)
After finding the patterns throughout the data, a statement was produced for each type of
pattern. A few examples of the findings here may help us to visualise the research
context, language sessions, school contexts, etc. Note that a brief description of
classroom observations is available in Chapter 8 [8.1.3. to 8.1.5.].
SOME FINDINGS OF THE SFW
………………………………………………………………………………
- None of the teachers engage in reflective activity (take notes, keep a diary or do
classroom observations about their teaching sessions).
- Teachers give homework at the end of the lesson, but none of them use any short
quiz to see whether or not all students have understood the topic.
- None of the teachers seemed to be undertaking educational AR for any purpose (to
solve problems or improve practice)...
(This report was revised 15/1/2000)

Chapter Six 139
In summary, the following emerged from the SFW:
- 31 classroom observations were conducted,
- Observed and interviewed teachers [7] were not aware of AR or its elements,
- These teachers did not use/implement any AR study either.
- I could not have a meeting with teachers to choose a topic to study because of double
session teaching programmes in schools.
- I gave the study materials on AR to each teacher so they could read these materials
and gain some knowledge of AR study.
- Since double session teaching badly affected coming together, I myself produced draft
rules of ethical concerns. Only T3 suggested views.
In general, the teachers interviewed and observed during the MA, FFW, SFW were not
familiar with the notion of AR and its elements. These teachers also stated that they had
not done or been involved in an AR study. It was seen that none of the teachers did/used
any reflective activity during my classroom observations. Consequently, the following
main issues arose:
1) Why do teachers [MA, FFW and SFW] not have knowledge of AR?
2) Does this lack of AR knowledge affect teachers’ self initiation of AR. That is, can
teachers themselves initiate an AR type of study without knowing what AR is?, its
evaluation etc.?
3) If teachers’ self-initiation and use of AR are not possible independently, how can AR
be introduced and initiated in schools in Turkey?
Note that each of these issues will be addressed at the end of this chapter. This section
continues to outline the formation of action cycles and plans.
At the end of 1997 I focussed on evaluating the FOAR. Hence the remainder of the
imagined solutions were investigated in the next cycles of FOAR and SOAR. For
instance, the selection of topic became available in the next cycle (1998). So the next
step of the first action cycle of the FOAR was to evaluate the actions as follows:

Chapter Six 140
FOAR [1997]
4th
Step:
I evaluated my actions Evaluating FFW, and SFW.
The evaluation of the FFW and SFW were carried out when these studies finished. After
the selection of potential participants and identification of the problematic topics in
English, the interviews indicated that teachers were not aware of AR. That is, they did
not have any pre-knowledge and experience of AR. I also learnt that undertaking any
curriculum study or syllabus design was impossible because of the heavily bureaucratic
education system. This was the first important finding among others. This indicated the
power of centralised policies too. This finding also helped me to realise that undertaking
an AR, without the permission of the authorities, in any areas of education and training
activities, was not possible.
My classroom observations during the SFW also indicated that the observed teachers did
not use any reflective activity while teaching English. In addition, they were not
currently undertaking an AR, or had not been involved in any AR study before. Although
the prepared study materials on AR were given to the participant teachers during the SFW, I
was unable to have a meeting to study or review these materials [during an Inset or
workshop] because of double session teaching programmes in schools.
Similarly, as noted, double session teaching badly affected coming together, and I could
not have a meeting to choose the focus of the SOAR and nor could I identify the ethical
rules of the study. Instead, I myself produced some draft rules about ethical concerns.
Only one of the participant teachers (T3) suggested views about the evaluation of the AR
study and this view was included in the ethical rules of this study.
Overall, these field studies of the first cycle indicated that an AR study on curriculum
development, syllabus design or a study with a university department was impossible or
highly difficult. Besides this, the focus of the actual AR had not been chosen /or
identified yet. In addition, I was not quite sure whether or not the participant teachers
had read the given study materials on AR and its elements. The 5th
step of the FOAR
was to review research problems stated in the first step and re-plan for the next cycle.
The first cycle of the FOAR undertaken in 1997 can therefore be summarised as follows.

Chapter Six 141
FOAR [1997] (First cycle)
1st
step:
I experienced problems - Lack of AR studies in Turkey,
- Teachers' unawareness of AR [MA],
- Traditional method of language teaching
………………………………….
2nd
Step:
I imagined solutions - To undertake an actual AR study in Turkey.
- To conduct field studies,
- To introduce the notion of AR,
- To explore contextual factors,
- To explore views of introducing and
initiating AR studies in various contexts for the
first time,
- To explore common points of AR and language
teaching theories.
3rd
Step:
I acted imagined solutions - Undertook the FFW,
- Prepared written materials about AR,
and gave it to the participant teachers,
- Undertook the SFW,
4th
Step:
I evaluated my actions - Evaluated FFW, and SFW,
5th
Step:
I reviewed problems and planned the 2nd
cycle of the FOAR.
Briefly, it will be seen that only a few of the imagined solutions could be put into
practice in one year (in 1997). These were undertaking field studies, creating some
materials on AR and giving these materials to the participant teachers. It was apparent
that the remainder of the imagined solutions should be investigated in the next cycles of
the study. In addition, it is seen that not only action cycles themselves, but also the
efforts (e.g. FFW, SFW, etc.) to initiate or to introduce the notion of AR to different
contexts have formed parts of action cycles in 1997. The following section explains my
efforts to undertake the next cycle

Chapter Six 142
6.3. Action Cycles and Action Plans (1998)
While planning to undertake the next cycle, it was my intention to implement the
remaining part of the imagined solutions in 1998. It seemed that the problems diagnosed
at the outset of the study [in 1997] still existed in the research context. It also seemed
that these problems should be sorted out step by step. It can be stated that major
problems that inspired the initiation of this study were still present in the research
context and this can be re-stated as follows.
FOAR [1998] (Second Cycle)
1st
step:
I experienced problems - Lack of AR studies in Turkey ,
- Teachers' unawareness of AR [MA]
- Traditional method of language teaching,
………………………………….
It was known from my MA study in 1996, and the investigations of the first cycle of the
FOAR in 1997, that teachers were not aware of AR, nor did they have any experience of
AR study. Hence it seemed that the introduction of AR to teachers, either in theory or in
practice, was still an important aim, and the following activities were imagined as
solutions of the above noted problems in the second cycle of the FOAR.
FOAR [1998] (Second cycle)
2nd
Step:
I imagined solutions - To introduce the notion of AR,
- To undertake an actual AR study in Turkey,
- To explore contextual barriers to the study,
I made some efforts to put the above noted and imagined solutions into practice. So the
third step of cycle 2 of my FOAR was devoted to the implementation of my imagined
solutions, and these can be stated as follows.
FOAR [1998]
3rd
Step:
I enacted the imagined solutions - Introducing AR to teachers,
- Selecting a topic to study,

Chapter Six 143
- Undertaking a SOAR with teachers,
- Exploring barriers to the study,
- …………………………………,
3rd
Step: The effort to introduce AR
My efforts to introduce the notion of AR to teachers theoretically, to prepare them for
the study and to make them context-wise before the initiation of an AR study, went on in
1998 also. As will be seen in the following part, I was in Turkey in the first week of
March 1998, but it was not possible to come together with the participant teachers to run
the planned Inset and workshop to study the prepared materials on AR because of double
session programmes in schools and teachers’ own excuses. The following part provides
more information about this topic.
3rd
Step: The Selection of Pedagogical Focus
The selection of topic had been one of my main concerns after the initiation of my PhD
study at UEA in 1997. This topic sometimes worried me and I wrote the following diary
note that indicates my initial feelings about the focus of my AR study:
Now it is really difficult for me to choose a topic and study it for
three years. What really interests me is that I wonder what or
which topic has not been studied so far. That is, there are hundreds
of action research studies in the literature of AR. It seems that I
should find a topic that has not been studied so far.
(diary, 3/7/1997, p.2 )
I realised that a critical review of the literature of AR was important to identify the focus
of the study. To that end I was constantly reviewing the literature, although I had some
insights into it during my master’s study, to learn about views as to how to initiate and
introduce AR studies. In fact, as seen in Chapter 1, exploring these views was one of my
main research objectives [see research question 2]. After reading Bennett’s (1996) view,
some study materials on AR were produced and given to participant teachers during the
SFW in 1997 to make them aware of AR. Briefly, through these literature reviews I
realised that action researchers could choose any topic (a problem, interest, etc.) as the
focus of their studies.
As stated in the 1st
cycle of FOAR, the selection of the focus was among the imagined
solutions, but it was also seen that double session teaching was the main barrier to

Chapter Six 144
convening with teachers during my field studies in 1997. This was because three of the
four schools included during the field studies were on double session teaching. Hence
those who teach in the morning session go home in the afternoon and those who teach in
the afternoon session finish teaching at 5:30 p.m. Thus it was difficult to find all
participant teachers’ free time on the same day. In addition, weather conditions were not
helpful. It gets dark around 4: 00 p.m. The teachers’ reasons for not participating
included: ‘I will set exams this week, I’m preparing my daughter for the university
exam, the cleaner will come today, national and religious holidays last about 10 days’,
etc. As a result, I could not find a suitable time for all teachers’ (7) on the same day
during my FFW and SFW in 1997. Eventually, as noted above, we could not identify the
focus of the study in 1997.
Although I arrived in Turkey in the first week of March in 1998, I only managed to have
my first meeting with the participant teachers six weeks after my arrival, on 17/4/1998,
during which time a topic – vocabulary teaching - was chosen to be pursued. [see
appendix N for a summary of that meeting]. At the beginning of this meeting a copy of
the report that indicated problematic areas in English was given to each participant
teacher. [Note that these problematic areas were collected from teachers and pupils in
written form during my FFW in 1997].
During this meeting the participant teachers stated that ‘the teaching of the Turkish
meaning of English words’ was difficult/problematic. Added to this, they stated that
pupils forgot the meaning of English words although they had learnt them. Pupils also
had difficulty in correctly pronouncing the English vocabulary. Finally, the teachers
reported that pupils were not eager to use English-to-English dictionaries. Generalising
across these problems, we were concerned with teaching/improving English vocabulary
teaching.
3rd
Step: Undertaking an AR Study
Undertaking an actual AR study with the participant teachers was one of the most
important imagined solutions, the aim of which was to explore the elements of the fourth
research question:

Chapter Six 145
Similarly, undertaking an AR in Turkey can also be seen as one of the activities to
introduce the notion of AR in Turkey. As discussed in Chapter 5, AR studies can be
introduced to different contexts in many ways. Previous attempts have included an
award-bearing course (Thorne & Qiang 1996), workshops (Irshad and Imrie 1997),
learning by doing it (McKernan 1991), etc. My efforts in their study aimed to introduce
it both theoretically and practically with an actual AR project in Turkey.
However, it was not practically possible to implement an actual AR without choosing
the participant teachers, the topic to study, and getting permission from the authorities in
Turkey. In another words, implementation of this solution [undertaking an AR study]
became possible only after the selection of the topic to study in 1998. In this sense the
selection of a topic (focus) became the first step of my SOAR. This was because the
focus of the SOAR was more specific - the improvement of vocabulary teaching. This
topic was investigated by me and participant teachers together, whereas the focus of my
FOAR was more general and had not been investigated by the participant teachers.
Besides this, the FOAR and SOAR studies each followed their own cycles, with the
SOAR embedded in FOAR. Eventually I was helping and guiding teachers in
undertaking the SOAR, and conducting both second order and first order action research
at the same time.
In other words, while enacting one of the imagined solutions (undertaking an actual AR)
of my FOAR, I simultaneously began to undertake an actual AR with teachers, and this
AR was called the SOAR. The next part below explains how my SOAR study with
teachers developed and formed an independent action cycle within the FOAR. The
following figure may be helpful to explain how I moved from FOAR to SOAR and vice
versa. The summary of the imagined solutions of the 2nd
cycle of FOAR were:
FOAR [1998]
3rd
Step:

Chapter Six 146
I enacted the imagined solutions - Efforts to introduce AR to teachers,
- The selection of the focus of a SOAR
- Undertaking an SOAR with teachers,
- …………………………………….
While investigating one of the imagined solutions of the FOAR, I therefore began to
undertake an actual AR study that formed an independent AR, within FOAR as follows:
FOAR [1998] (Second cycle) SOAR [1998] (First cycle)
3rd
Step: …………………………….
I went on enacting the imagined solutions - Undertaking an actual AR,
1st
Step: Identifying the Focus,
[Vocabulary teaching].
As seen above, the first step of the SOAR study was choice of a topic/interest and this
was done on 17/4/1998. From this step on, I was carrying out my SOAR, but this also
implicitly meant that I was investigating one of the imagined solutions of my FOAR.
The next step of SOAR, according to Somekh’s (1989) and McBride’s models, was to
collect data. So far the stages of the SOAR can be stated as follows:
SOAR [1998] (First cycle)
1st
Step: Identify an interest/topic/problem,
[vocabulary teaching],
2nd
Step: Collect data.
In 1998 I began to collect data from pupils and teachers after the topic selection meeting
that took place on 17/4/1998. As stated earlier, teachers wanted to improve the teaching
of the Turkish meaning of English words, to teach correct pronunciation of newly taught
words, and to encourage pupils to use English to English dictionaries. Among these
problematic areas, the improvement of vocabulary [English] teaching was chosen as the
focus of the SOAR. To collect data from teachers and pupils immediately, a note was
written on a piece of paper and given to each teacher to elicit teachers’ and pupils’
suggestions about the selected topic [see appendix O to see T7’s suggestions].

Chapter Six 147
Turkish: Daha iyi kelime ogretilmesi icin veya Ingilizce kelimelerin ogrenciler
tarafindan iyi ve kalici sekilde kavranabilmesi icin neler yapilmalidir? Diger
bir deyisle, ingilizce kelime ogretiminde genel ilkeler neler olmalidir?
English: What sorts of step (s) need (s) to be taken in order to teach
vocabulary well or to get pupils to acquire vocabulary effectively? In
other words, what must be the general principles of teaching English
vocabulary?
The following table indicates the number of suggestions offered by teachers and pupils.
This table also indicates the date they (teachers and pupils) returned the materials.
Indicating the return dates is important because I had to wait until they returned the
materials. In other words, it was not possible to carry on the 3rd
step of SOAR (analysing
data) without finishing the data collection.
Teachers & Pupils Number of Date of
Names Suggestions Return
T2 14 1/5/1998
O. Gursu 3 1/5/1998
N. Temel 6 1/5/1998
T4 7 27/4/1998
U. Kara 6 27/4/1998
E. Eker 8 27/4/1998
T5 19 22/4/1998
Z. Memis 4 22/4/1998
N. Aydin 5 22/4/1998
T6 16 17/41998
T6 4 4/5/1998
E. Kamber 2 29/4/1998
B. Ates 2 29/4/1998
S. Candar 3 29/4/1998
T7 10 17/4/1998
G. Yilmaz 4 17/4/1998
S. Sahin 2 17/4/1998
The total numbers of suggestions posed by the teachers was 70 and by pupils was 49.
The next step of the SOAR was to give meaning to the collected data:
SOAR [1998]
3rd
Step: Analyse data and generate hypotheses.
Although the above stated third step requires action researchers to generate hypotheses, I
preferred using ‘to analyse data and produce action plans’. This is because the word

Chapter Six 148
‘hypothesis’ is usually used in quantitative rather than qualitative approaches. The next
step, after data collection, was to produce and plan action plans. This is illustrated:
SOAR [1998]
4th
Step: Produce and plan action steps [plans].
It was not possible to have another meeting with teachers to analyse data and to produce
action plans for the reasons given [see pp. 136 and 144]. As a solution, I myself analysed
the data by looking for the most common patterns stated both by pupils and teachers in
1998. As will be seen in Chapter 7, the collected data was analysed using a coding
system, giving labels to the data, looking for patterns, putting the similar patterns in one
group, etc. This way of coding was mainly inductive although I did deductive coding
while seeking answers to the research questions. Coding data in this way implicitly
included the production of action plans concerning the collected data.
After finishing the data analysis and producing potential action plans, each teacher was
visited to get their suggestions and agreement. Five of the teachers agreed with my
interim action plans and we [teachers and myself] decided to use them while teaching
the selected topic. The agreed action plans as formulated in 1998, were:
- Learners learn well if English vocabulary is taught using drawings or pictures.
- Learners learn well if English vocabulary is taught through acting or in action.
- Learners learn well if similar words [phonetically, semantically and scripturaly (PSS)]
are used/exploited between the English and Turkish languages by teachers.
Note: the word ‘learners’ refers to students and pupils.
It was assumed that teachers could implement the above noted first and second action
plans without preparation. For instance, they can draw instantly, or teach by action, but it
seemed necessary for me to undertake the search for those words that refer to PSS
similarity. To that end I took responsibility, produced a list of those words by looking at
a Turkish-English16
dictionary, and gave that list to each participant teacher. That list
included about 1, 000 words and the following are a few examples of them.
English Turkish Meaning Turkish Phonetic Turkish Script
acacia akasya akasya akasya
academy akademi akademi akademi
16
Source: Redhouse English-Turkish Dictionary.

Chapter Six 149
academic akademik akademik akademmik
accordion akordion akordion akordion
balcony balkon balkon balkon
ballerina balerin balerin balerin
ballistic balistik balistik balistik
balloonbalon balon balon
bamboo bambu bambu bambu
cactus kaktus kaktus kaktus
cafe kafe kafe kafe
cafeteria kafeterya kafeterya kafeterya
cake kek kek kek
calcium kalsiyum kalsiyum kalsiyum
……… …………. ………. ……………
It can be seen that in terms of semantic, phonetic and graphic features, some English
words are written the same in Turkish. According to teachers’ and pupils’ claims, these
kinds of similarities are useful while teaching/learning English words [see sections 8.4.
and 8.5.].
After giving a copy of this list to each participant teacher, the next step of SOAR was to
use these action plans in classrooms:
SOAR [1998]
5th
Step: Implement action steps [plans].
The participant teachers were primarily responsible for implementing/using the agreed
action plans in classrooms. My task was to observe the teachers, pupils and classes.
Before or during my classroom observations I did not tell teachers, for instance, do this,
do that, use this action plan, etc. This was because my intention was also to promote
teachers’ [real] commitment to the study because the participant teachers were
volunteers and eager to be involved in this AR study. That is why they were chosen and
included in this study on the basis of ‘purposive sampling’.
The next step of the SOAR was to collect data from pupils and the participant teachers to
elicit their views about action plans and AR study. So the next stage is stated as follows:
SOAR [1998]
6th
Step: Collect data to monitor change.

Chapter Six 150
Data concerning the influence of action plans was collected in two ways. In the first
place I wrote notes in my diary about my classroom observations. In this way writing
diary notes constituted my immediate reflection about the action plans. These diary
notes also included my observations about teachers, teachers’ use of action plans and the
influence of action plans, etc. Secondly, data about the implementation of action plans
was collected through interviews.
It is necessary to note here that in both single and double session schools, breaks last
only ten minutes. The pupils in double session have breaks after doing two lessons
[every 80 minutes], whereas the pupils on single session have breaks after every lesson
[40 minutes]. Thus I preferred interviewing pupils during these breaks when the lessons
were over. The intention in doing this was to get pupils’ immediate reflections [views]
about the influence of action plans. It should also be noted that there was no a pre-
decided list or decision about whom to interview. My intention was to interview as many
volunteer pupils as possible. Through interviews the participant teachers’ views of action
plans were also elicited, but these interviews took place in their free times and in the
staff rooms of schools. Finally, it should be noted that all my classroom observations
were tape-recorded, transcribed and translated into English.
After the collection of data about the use and influence of action plans, the next step
concerned the analysis of data and evaluation of the study:
SOAR [1998]
7th
Step: Analyse data and evaluate the study.
I returned from Turkey at the end of May 1998 and went on analysing the collected data
in Britain. Data analysis can therefore be interpreted in two ways. First, the analysis of
the collected data constituted the evaluation of the 1st
cycle of the SOAR.
Simultaneously, since my SOAR was a part of my FOAR, the evaluation of the 1st
cycle
of SOAR also meant the evaluation of the FOAR. So far, the summary of the 2nd
cycle
of the FOAR and the 1st
cycle of the SOAR can be stated as follows:
2nd
Step:
I imagined solutions - To introduce the notion of AR,

Chapter Six 151
- To undertake an actual AR study in Turkey,
- To explore contextual barriers to the study,
To these ends the following activities were put into practice
FOAR [1998]
3rd
Step:
I enacted the imagined solutions - Efforts to introduce AR to teachers,
- Selection of the focus of a SOAR
- Undertaking a SOAR with teachers,
While investigating one of the imagined solutions of the FOAR, I began to undertake an
actual AR study that formed an independent AR, within FOAR as follows:
3rd
Step: …………………………….
I went on enacting
the imagined solutions -Undertaking an actual AR,
1st
Step: Identifying the Focus,
[Vocabulary teaching].
2nd
Step: Collect data.
………………………..
7th
Step: Analyse data and evaluate the study.
After finishing the implementation of the imagined solutions of FOAR in 1998, the next
step was to evaluate all of the imagined solutions of the FOAR. This step is designated
as follows:
4th
Step:
I evaluated my actions that refer to the evaluation of my efforts to
introduce AR, the selection of topic,
overall of outcome of my SOAR,
and exploring barriers to the study.

Chapter Six 152
Consequently, the following activities were carried our to evaluate both action cycles.
- Contextual barriers (cultural, political and educational) had already been explored from
the literature, as discussed in Chapter 3; but with the implementation of the SOAR study,
it became clear that some social and cultural elements of the research context were also
barriers to the implementation of AR in Turkey.
- The participant teachers’ and pupils’ views of AR and action plans were explored.
- The participant teachers’ suggestions were explored for the next cycle of SOAR.
- The next cycles of FOAR and SOAR were planned on the basis of the above
mentioned findings and suggestions.
The final step of the FOAR in 1998 was to review the assumed action plans and re-plan
the next action cycle:
5th
Step:
I reviewed problems and planned the 3rd
cycle of the FOAR.
An embedded form of action cycles in 1998 is shown below. Note that the big cycle
refers to the 2nd
cycle of the FOAR, whereas the small one refers to the 1st
cycle of the
SOAR.
An important note is that although Elliott (1991) states that action researchers should
change their focus when they experience a problem while implementing the first cycle of
1. Problem
2. Imagining
Solutions
3. Enacting
Solutions
4. Evaluating
Actions
5. Reflecting
and Re-planning
1st
cycle
of the
SOAR

Chapter Six 153
the study, I did not change the focus of the SOAR. This was because I wanted to explore
the reasons behind those problems, asking in-depth questions. It was assumed that if we
explore those reasons, other action researchers would take these points into account
before undertaking new AR studies in Turkey.
6.4. Action Cycles and Action Plans in 1999
It is not always possible to decide exactly where action cycles begin and end. For
instance, it can be argued that the 2nd
cycle of my FOAR ended after evaluating the
imagined solutions. However, it can also be argued that the evaluation of my FOAR
continued in 1999 as well. This was because I implemented the 2nd
cycle of the SOAR
that was a part of the FOAR. In addition, the reasons for initiating the FOAR were still
valid in the research context. These were the ‘lack of AR studies in Turkey, teachers’
lack of knowledge about AR, etc. In this case the problem statement and the starting
points of action cycles took the following form;
FOAR [1999] (Third Cycle)
1st
step:
I experienced problems - Lack of AR in Turkey,
- Unawareness of AR,
- Implementation of an AR was problematic in
1998 as revealed by the collected data.
- …………………………………………,
It became clear after the implementation of the 1st
cycle of the SOAR that there was one
further problem in addition to the known ones such as lack of AR, and teachers
unawareness of AR. This new problem could be named the ‘implementation problem’
and more data and discussion will be offered in Chapter 8. [see sections 8.9.1. and
8.9.2.]. The imagined solutions to the problems can be stated as follows;
FOAR [1999]
2nd
Step:
I imagined solutions - Introduction of AR [individual visits],
- Investigating the problems that were experienced
in the 1st
cycle of SOAR,
- Undertaking the 2nd
cycle of the SOAR,
- Eliciting teachers’ suggestions,
- ……………………………………

Chapter Six 154
Since I had some experience of implementing an actual AR in 1997 and 1998, no sooner
had I arrived in Turkey than I began to implement the imagined solutions in 1999. That
is, I began to implement the imagined solutions as soon as possible. The following is a
brief account of the imagined solutions. Note that I was conducting the 3rd
cycle of my
FOAR in 1999 while undertaking the 2nd
cycle of SOAR, which was also a part of the 3rd
cycle of FOAR. Similarly, eliciting teachers’ suggestions, etc. are part of the FOAR. The
third step of FOAR is, therefore:
FOAR [1999]
3rd
Step:
I enacted the imagined solutions - Investigating the implementation problem of
the SOAR,
- Introducing AR through individual visits,
cycle of the SOAR,
……………………………………,
3rd Step: Investigating the Implementation Problem of AR
This was the first task undertaken after my arrival in Turkey in 1998. The reason was
that the data of the 1st
cycle of the SOAR was analysed in Britain and this analysis was
regarded as interim until I was able to check these with teachers. The implementation
problems were divided into two categories, ‘teacher-based and school based reasons’,
with the agreement of the participant teachers. The possibility of solving the problems
experienced during the implementation of the 1st
cycle of the SOAR was therefore
investigated before undertaking the 2nd
cycle of the SOAR. However, it became clear
that solving these problems was beyond the authority and power of the participant
teachers and me. This meant that I went on carrying out the 2nd
cycle of SOAR in 1999,
even though I knew that I could not solve the implementation problems of AR. I decided
to continue in the face of these obstacles because I felt that it would still be possible to
learn important lessons about the possibilities and limitations of AR in Turkey through
the attempt to carry out a specific classroom study.
3rd
Step: Introducing AR through visits

Chapter Six 155
It seemed that my previous attempts [in 1997 and 1998] to introduce the notion of AR to
the participant teachers had not fully achieved their objective because of the constraints
on teachers’ time and energy.
Eventually, having experienced the introduction problems of previous years, I made a
special effort to introduce the notion of AR to the teachers in 1999. To that end twelve
visits were made in the teachers’ free time during which I introduced AR using
Somekh’s (1989) and McBride’s (1995) views. During these visits I introduced only one
topic, for instance, the first step of AR, to the teachers at each visit and answered
teachers’ questions. In general, a case report [case report 8] was produced to indicate my
efforts to introduce AR to the teachers in 1997, 1998 and 1999. The following extracts
provide evidence of my efforts to introduce AR to the teachers.
1st
Meeting:
Date: 14/4/1999
Participants: T6 and T7
Place OAL
Time : 11:00-12:00
Topic :
We talked about the 1st
and 2nd
stages of the study. Besides this, the following extracts indicate
my attempts to prepare the teachers.
ET: “choose some students from any year [orta 1, 2 or 3], write a note on paper and ask .... how
should vocabulary be taught?, what is the best way of teaching vocabulary?...
T7’s interest;
He wants to know if there is any difference between students’ learning, who were interviewed
last year and this year... let me investigate this...?”
... see you next Wednesday, I will get this written by the students and you collect them later.
ET: next Wednesday we will analyse and produce action strategies together, like this we will
have finished the 3rd
stage.
12th
Meeting:
Date : 6.5.1999
Participant : T7
Place : OAL
Time : ...
Topic :
T7 and I analysed the collected data from the students and produced the following action plans
during the break.
-it is easy to teach those vocabularies whose phonetic and scripts are similar to Turkish,
- it is easy to teach those words which have one syllable,
- it is easy to teach those words that are easy to pronounce,
- it is easy to teach those words which have PSS similarity,
- it is difficult to teach those words which have hard pronunciation and many syllables,
The end

Chapter Six 156
My efforts in 1999 aimed to introduce AR both theoretically and empirically.
Theoretical introduction took place in the form of question and answer sessions. During
the empirical introduction we [teachers and me] collected data from pupils, analysed the
collected data, produced action plans together, etc., while undertaking the 2nd cycle of
the SOAR. Briefly, I tried my best to make the participant teachers aware of AR; yet it is
known that the teachers’ commitment is also important. It should be acknowledged,
therefore, that the teachers who took part in this study may not have shared the kind of
commitment that most writers consider central to an AR approach. I discuss this issue in
more detail in later chapters.
3rd
Step: Undertaking the next Cycle of the SOAR
As seen earlier, undertaking the next cycle of the SOAR was one of the imagined
solutions of my FOAR. So implementing this solution also constituted the 2nd
cycle of
the SOAR. Implementing the 2nd
cycle of the SOAR in 1999 meant that I moved from
my FOAR to the SOAR, as the following diagram illustrates:
FOAR [1999] SOAR [1999]
3rd
Step:
I went on enacting - Undertaking the 2nd
cycle of the SOAR,
the imagined solutions
- ………………………………………,
As noted, undertaking another cycle to improve the selected topic –vocabulary teaching-
formed the 2nd
cycle of the SOAR, and embedded in the 3rd
cycle of the FOAR. So the
second cycle of the SOAR can be illustrated as follows:
..... SOAR [1999]
1st
Step: Identify the focus / interest, etc.
[vocabulary teaching].

Chapter Six 157
As known, the next step of the SOAR was to collect data from the teachers and pupils.
This step is stated as follows:
SOAR [1999]
2nd
Step: Collect Data
As will be seen in the remainder of this section each teacher created and used his/her
own action plans in 1999. For instance, T2 taught English in Prep B in 1999 and her
interest was to learn how words are taught well so the pupils do not forget them. She
raised this point at a meeting held on 15/4/1999. As a result, 23 pupils from Prep B were
asked, and answered, the following questions on 29/4/1999.
We forget some words [English] easily, but never forget some others.
- What sorts of words are never forgotten?
- In what cases and under what conditions must they [words] be taught in order
not to forget them?
In order to teach words in an unforgettable way,
- What do you (learners) need to do?
- How should I (teacher) teach lessons?
T4 and I decided to collect data from class 6-D and six pupils (three boys and three girls)
were selected for that purpose. It was my idea to collect data from these pupils in the
written form because transcribing interviews takes much time and I had one month left
to return back to Britain. These pupils answered the following questions:
-What problems do you experience when you learn new words?
-Do you think some words are easily learnt?
-If so, give examples and why are they easy?
-Do you think some words are difficult to learn?
-If so, give examples and why are they difficult?
-In your opinion, how should English vocabulary be taught?
(30/4/1999)
T5, like T7, wanted to know if the pupils interviewed last year (1998) in class 7-D had
the same idea or not about vocabulary teaching this year (1999). To that end, seven
pupils answered the above questions.
It should be noted that I did not see actual data, in the form of pupil responses, from
some teachers. T6, for instance, stated that she had collected and analysed data, but had
forgotten them at home. T7 reported that the pupils’ answers were "in my mind but I did
not collect them in written form". I stated the necessity of collecting data in written

Chapter Six 158
form. The following extract indicates the difficulty of undertaking a SOAR with others.
T7 said, “I did not do what you wanted, as a matter of fact, I do not remember where I
put that stuff”. So I wrote some notes about what he should collect on a piece of paper
and gave it to him again. My diary note indicates his commitment to this research as
follows; “This teacher replied to my answer as follows: teacher [calling me], I did not
do my homework” (diary, 3/5/1999, p.111). He meant that he did not collect data from
pupils. He finally brought the collected data, two months after my arrival in Turkey, on
5/5/1999 (diary, 5/5/1999, p.115). Not all the teachers shared a strong commitment to
the study therefore. The later chapters of this thesis explore some of the reasons for this.
After collecting data from all the teachers, the next step was to give meaning to the
collected data and this is stated as follows:
SOAR [1999]
3rd
Step: Analyse data and produce action plans
Using a coding system, as in 1998, analysis was carried out to make sense of the data.
Data analysis and production of action plans with teachers were carried out through my
individual visits. That is, I visited those teachers individually in their free times and
analysed the data in the staff rooms of schools. In this way, the production of action
plans was done soon after the finishing the data analysis. Since each teacher preferred
using his/her own action plans in 1999, several types of action plan emerged eventually,
but the following note is also important to include here.
A brief account of previous AR studies on language teaching was provided in Chapter 5
to explore whether or not they made an attempt to find common points between AR and
language teaching theories. After reading those AR studies in detail, I made the
following major criticism of the style or presentation of those studies. These were:
1-) Most of these studies do not introduce what was/were the action plan(s)
Cumming & Gill (1991), Fortune (1992), Armstrong (1992), Philport (1993), Richard
(1993), Pritchard (1995) among others. Instead the writers of these studies offer a
general discussion of the study. I tried to guess the action plans, but I do not know how
the action plans were worded in the writers’ mind’s.
2-) Most of these studies do not reveal which model of AR was used in the study
Armstrong (1992), Richard (1993), Sergeant (1993), Laidlaw (1994), Block (1997), Mok
(1997) among others.

Chapter Six 159
If AR studies do not provide much information about action plans and models used, this
may not be taken a shortcoming of those studies. Yet I would argue that action
researchers should clearly state/reveal the action plans used in their studies. In this way
researchers make their analysis open to discussion. This seems to be important if we
consider Stenhouse’s (1980, p.1) view of research as “systematic inquiry made public”.
Another benefit of introducing action plans is that if those action plans are not
introduced, the readers waste their time speculating or guessing the action plans of
studies. For the above given reason, the following commentary offers all of the action
plans of the 2nd
cycle of the SOAR in 1999.
SOAR [1999]
4th
Step: Produce and plan action steps.
T2 and I, after analysing the collected data and producing five potential action plans,
decided to put into practice only two. These were:
- Teaching words [English] through drawing or pictures.
- Teaching words through role-plays and interesting dialogues.
(diary, 29/4/1999, p. 107)
After analysing the collected data with T4 and producing five action plans, we
eventually decided to use two of them to teach the selected topic during English lessons:
- Teaching words through repetition.
- Teaching words through mime and by acting.
(diary, 3/5/1999, p.110).
After analysing and producing action plans with T5 on 3/5/1999, the following action
plans were produced and used in 1999:
- Teaching words [English] through associations.
- Teaching words [English] through games.
- Teaching words [English] through PSS similarity.
(diary, 3/5/1999, p. 111)
As stated earlier, T6 analysed the collected data at home and gave me the produced
action plans. Among five action plans the followings were used:
- Teaching words [English] through pictures and photographs.
- Teaching words [English] by giving synonyms and antonyms.
- Teaching words by giving brief explanation in English.
(diary, 28/4/1999, p. 106).

Chapter Six 160
After analysing the collected data with T7 on 6/5/1999 (diary, 6/5/1999, p.117), it was
found that the pupils (YC and OK) interviewed last year (1998) had the same idea about
vocabulary teaching this year (1999. Hence we decided to use the action plans used in
1998 [see the action cycles used in 1989 above].
SOAR [1999]
5th
Step: Implement action plans
Teachers implemented the above noted action plans in classrooms while I was observing
them. In this way each teacher’s teaching session was observed more than twice. While
observing, I tape recorded observations, took diary notes and on occasions took pictures.
SOAR [1999]
6th
Step: Collect data to monitor change
Pupils were interviewed as soon as the lessons were over. The participant teachers, as I
did last year, were interviewed in their free times in the staff rooms of schools. In
addition, the head teacher of each school and a deputy head of the LEA were
interviewed to learn about their views of AR.
SOAR [1999]
7th
Step: Analyse data and evaluate the study
Data analysis, transcription, translation and evaluation of the study were carried out
when I was back in Britain. The interim data analysis was sent back to teachers in
Turkey on 16/09/1999, but two of the teachers [T6 and T7] did not return the materials I
sent. Since the evaluation of the FOAR in 1999 included all activities done in 1997,
1998 and 1999, the evaluation of the FOAR and the SOAR was carried out at the same
time in 1999 and can be summarised as follows:
FOAR [1999]
4th
Step:
I evaluated my actions Field studies in 1998,
Tasks to introduce AR in 1998 and 1999,
Exploring contextual factors,
Evaluation of the 1st
Exploring suggestions in 1998 [for further AR],
Evaluation of the 2nd
cycle of SOAR IN 1999,

Chapter Six 161
5th
Step: I finished undertaking action cycles at the end of May 1999, but went on
analysing data and writing up the thesis. A brief recapitulation of all of the action cycles
and plans used in 1999 can be stated as follows:
FOAR [1999] (Third Cycle)
1st
Step:
I experienced problems - Lack of AR in Turkey,
- Unawareness of AR,
- Implementation of an AR was problematic in
1998 as revealed by the collected data.
……………………………………,
FOAR [1999]
2nd
Step:
I imagined solutions - Introduction of AR [individual visits],
- Investigating the problems that were experienced
in the 1st
cycle of SOAR,
cycle of the SOAR,
- ……………………………………
FOAR [1999]
3rd
Step:
I enacted the imagined solutions - Investigating the implementation problem of
the SOAR,
- Introducing AR through individual visits,
cycle of the SOAR,
……………………………………,
3rd
Step:
I went on enacting - Undertaking the 2nd
cycle of the SOAR,
the imagined solutions
……….......... SOAR [1999] (Second Cycle)
1st
Step: Identify the focus / interest, etc.
[vocabulary teaching].

Chapter Six 162
2nd
Step: Collect data,
……………………………,
7th
Step: Analyse data and evaluate the study
FOAR [1999]
4th
Step:
I evaluated my actions field studies in 1998,
Tasks to introduce AR in 1998 and 1999,
Exploring contextual factors,
Evaluation of the 1st
Evaluation of the 2nd
cycle of SOAR IN 1999,
An embedded form of action cycles and plans used in 1999 is as follows:
6.5. Discussion of issues which emerged from the field studies
This study was based on the use of two interrelated AR models. One of these models
[Whitehead 1989] was used while investigating researcher general objectives [research
questions 1st
, 2nd
, 3rd
, 5th
and 6th
]. However, while undertaking an actual AR study with
the teachers and investigating the selected topic, another model of AR was used
[Somekh 1989 and McBride 1995]. In this respect there was a transition between the
FOAR and the SOAR; but while evaluating the influences of action plans and action
cycles in 1999 there was a mutual evaluation of FOAR and SOAR. In this sense, it can
be claimed that the study is a mixture of first and second order AR.
1. Problem
2. Imagining
Solutions
3. Enacting
Solutions
4. Evaluating
Actions
5. Reflecting and
Re-planning

Chapter Six 163
I wish to conclude this chapter with a brief discussion of issues, which emerged from the
field studies. Three issues are especially worthy of attention:
1) Why do teachers not have knowledge of AR?
2) Does this lack of AR knowledge affect teachers’ self-initiation of AR? That is, can
teachers themselves initiate an AR type of study without knowing what AR is, its
evaluation etc.?
3) If teachers’ self-initiation and use of AR are not possible independently, how can AR
be introduced and initiated in schools in Turkey?
Issue 1:
Why do the teachers not have knowledge of AR?
It seems that the contents of curriculum programmes used in language teaching
departments of universities in Turkey are significant elements. Interviews with a head
[ZE] of an English Language Teaching Department help to explain the point.
Q-2) what are the main types of modules (literature or linguistic
based)?
A-2) I say they are linguistic-based because we teach ... e.g.
Introduction to Linguistics, Semantics, Methodology, The History
of English,... We also teach Literature only four hours weekly...
Q-3) How were the modules (taught courses) chosen or who
chose them?
A-3) Now I run a pre-decided programme, but it does not have a
Phonetic (module). This lesson certainly should be taught. As of
1998-1999 academic year we have to run a programme which will
be sent by the HEC. This is a joint project initiated by the World
Bank and MOE. This project aims to apply a standard curriculum
at all foreign language teaching departments in Turkey...
(int. FFW 1997)
It is clear from this extract that a pre-decided curriculum is in practice. The lessons
taught under Methodology cover both language teaching techniques [drama, role play,
flannel board and flash cards, pair work, group work, etc.] and some language teaching
methods [the GTM, ALM, DM, Cognitive Code, etc.]. Yet these lessons do not include
any topic such as Experimental Design, Survey, CS, AR, etc.
The second interview with this head [ZE] took place while undertaking the final cycles
of my AR in 1999 and aimed to find out whether or not the joint project between the

Chapter Six 164
MOE and WB was put into practice in 1999. The following extract explains the choice
of the modules taught in the language departments of universities.
ET- as a last thing can you give me any information about
suggesting new modules to be taught at this department.
ZE: Now we have no any chance of suggesting new modules, the
modules we apply are sent by the HEC. At the end of May [1999]
we will be inspected [by the HEC to see] if these programmes are
applied or not. The HEC wants us to apply this programme, they
were very strict on this issue, … (int. 11/5/1999)
After the interview and getting a photocopy of the contents of the new curriculum, it
seemed that this new curriculum includes a module about methodology, but its contents,
as explained in Chapter 3 [see 3.2.6.], do not seem to include AR or its elements or
something similar [see also appendix C]. Therefore, one can infer that student teachers’
subject knowledge is usually determined by the annual curricula applied at the language
departments in Turkey. This means that if the contents of new curriculum applied at
language teaching departments do not include AR type modules, they may not be aware
of AR.
Issue 2:
Does this lack of AR knowledge affect teachers’ self-initiation of AR? That is, can
teachers themselves initiate an AR type of study without knowing what AR is, its
models, its evaluation etc.?
At the outset Bennett’s (1996, p.81) view had affected my ideas for producing some
materials on AR after seeing teachers’ lack of awareness of AR. I believed at the time
that if teachers were not of aware AR and its elements, they could not undertake it.
However, the following views have also influenced my ideas of understanding an AR
study. The following is an account of views for and against the feasibility of teacher
action research in contexts where AR is unfamiliar.
Evidence from other projects:
There are a few studies which address this issue. For instance, Blake (1986) explains the
relationship between AR and Inset as follows:
The key concerns of the Cambridge style of classroom based
research thus became the resolution of shared meanings and
experiences ... that teachers should be equipped with a repertoire

Chapter Six 165
of defined skills so that they may monitor their practice more
critically and be able to propose future changes.
(Blake 1986, p.75)
Gore & Zeichner (1991) undertook a reflective practice project with 18 students-teachers
to evaluate the Madison elementary teacher education programme in the States. Their
views about the introduction of AR to students are as follows:
I provide this document to the students during my first meeting
with them... Other supervisors argued that AR should not be
introduced until three or four weeks into the semester... AR
appears on the syllabus and the students want to know what it is
about. ... If the students have no idea what AR is about (p.127)’,
... ‘introducing AR right away means that students can begin to
look at critically at their situations and deal constructively with
their concerns … (Gore & Zeichner 1991, p.128)
Thorne & Qiang (1996) express their views about the introduction and initiation of AR
to the teachers who do an MA degree in Beijing University as follows:
The project is divided into two stages: during the first semester,
the aim is to familiarise the participants both theoretically and
practically with the AR approach. During the second semester
student[s] teaching in pairs undertake their own cycle of research
with their TP class... Since the notion of AR is completely new to
the participants, we think it essential to start the trainees towards
an understanding of what AR is, what it is for. We organise
workshops... designed to allow them to discover the meaning of
AR for themselves ...
(Thorne & Qiang 1996, p. 256)
Moreover, Irshad & Imrie (1997) conducted an AR project to improve the attainment of
those pupils who get poor marks at schools. Their views about the introduction and
initiation of AR are:
In the workshop we used ‘Force Field Analysis’ as a way of
analysing the operational environment of the Project in a school.
We found that this model [FFA] was a useful tool for introducing
AR in a school and to begin to define the starting point for
investigation. (Irshad & Imrie 1997, p. 16)
These examples imply that action researchers should introduce the notion of AR to
participants and prepare them for the study if these participants are unaware of it, before
actually initiating the study. However, there are also counter views about the

Chapter Six 166
introduction and initiation of the study. For instance, McKernan (1991), after conducting
three AR studies - on gypsy education in inner-city Dublin; a university-school
collaborative in rural North Carolina and a doctoral seminar at East Carolina University -
concludes that “First, AR is easier to do than to ‘teach’” (McKernan 1991, p.108).
Pryor’s (1988) experience of AR in Ghana underlines the importance of the conditions
in which AR is undertaken. He states that “Ghanaian teachers do not see themselves as
agents, merely as operatives” (p.223). Keevens & McKenzie (1997, p.238) explain the
term ‘agent’ as follows; “human beings are agents who are responsible for their own
ideas and actions”. Pryor (1998), having stressed the importance of ‘agency’, maintains
that the adverse contextual elements [social, cultural, etc.] undermine the possibility of
teachers acting as agents.
In an account of a project involving Egyptian teachers, McBride (1999) states that “
Egyptian teachers promoted a sense of agency” and “over sixty percent of teachers made
changes” (p.8) after an inset course at the UEA. It seems that a change must take place in
teachers’ self-understanding. Pryor would argue that, if teachers are not aware of their
own ‘agency’, any critical reflection on their own classroom practice is meaningless. He
concludes that considerations such as “... time, incentives, resources, ... support or
linking with action researchers from elsewhere” need to be addressed while undertaking
AR studies (1998, p.226).
This brief summary indicates that there are some studies that would support my claim
about the initiation and introduction of AR. I have concluded that the introduction of AR
itself is necessary if teachers are unaware and there is no culture of AR or the contextual
conditions undermine teacher-agency. However, as noted, the introduction of theoretical
knowledge may not be sufficient because contextual elements and teachers themselves
also affect the outcome of AR studies.
I wrote the following diary note after reading P. Ovens’ thesis.
While reading P. Ovens’ Ph.D. thesis, I came across the same idea
and I became so happy. Ovens (1988:19) stated that …, in order
to do this, teachers needed to be equipped with the necessary
theoretical ideas to guide that practice.
(diary, 7/2/1998, p.24)

Chapter Six 167
Elliott (1985) in his description of five TIQL projects, reported the recruitment of
coordinators who had been inducted into the theory and practice of AR:
In negotiating school improvement we sought coordinators (...)
who had an understanding and experience of AR strategies and
methods, developed through their involvement in research-based
award bearing courses ... (Elliott 1985, p. 235)
The final example comes from Stuart and Kunje’s (1998) AR study undertaken in
Malawi. They come up with several suggestions at the end of the study, one of which
states that “first there must be support for the teachers who are undertaking it.” (p. 391).
These examples support my argument that pre-knowledge and experience of AR are
among the necessary factors to undertake an actual AR study. To conclude:
- Introduction or help seems to be important if participants are unaware of AR.
- Introduction and implementation of an AR study is heavily dependent on teacher
agency.
- Teachers may be agents, but problems may prevent them from being an agent.
- If teachers are enable to take the role of agency, they can use AR to some extent.
Issue Three:
If teachers’ self-initiation and use of AR are not possible independently, how can
AR be introduced and initiated at schools in Turkey?
Evidence presented in Chapter 4 indicated that only a few researchers (e.g. Elliott 1976,
Elliott 1985, Kemmis 1985) expressed views about the preparation and facilitation of
AR studies in schools. It was also noted in Chapter 5 that AR studies can be introduced
and initiated in many ways; e.g. through ‘workshops’ (Irshad & Imrie 1997), an award-
bearing courses (Thorne & Qiang 1996) among others. Similarly, AR could be
introduced through Inset courses, distance learning activities, etc. Hence, it could be
concluded that the action researchers’ intentions and the conditions of the contexts in
which the study will be undertaken usually determine the methods or styles of
introduction of AR. However, in order to find out which ways are more effective, further
AR studies need to be undertaken in Turkey.

Chapter Six 168
6.6. Conclusion
In this chapter I have provided a description of the overall structure of the study, in
terms of the action cycles involved over the three years. I have explained how the study
is a mixture of first and second order action research, by mapping the inter-related cycles
of the FOAR and the SOAR studies. Throughout the chapter, I have also attempted to
convey the processes of reflection and refinement of focus which I underwent, as I
struggled to move the first-order study through its successive cycles, and at the same
time, to support the teachers who were carrying out the vocabulary studies of the SOAR
phase.
The chapter has also addressed the question of whether teachers should explicitly be
taught the principles and procedures of action research, and whether this conflicts with
the "bottom up" ethos expressed by many commentators (eg. Elliott 1991, p.6; Kember
2000, p29). While, as described above, I tried as far as possible to allow teachers and
pupils to formulate their own needs and direct the course of the SOAR study, I
concluded that the particular socio-cultural conditions of education in Turkey made it
necessary to provide specially-prepared instruction on AR. The same conditions also
required me to play a more directive role in the SOAR than might be considered
appropriate in other countries and contexts.
It should also be noted that while the SOAR study meets the second principle of AR
suggested in Chapter 5 - namely that "AR-based language teaching should address
learners' needs" - it has not been my intention, within the limited scope of this thesis, to
test or verify the impact on students' learning of the vocabulary innovations attempted by
the teachers. I do not claim therefore, to offer definitive evidence either to support, or to
refute, the success of this specific language teaching intervention. Rather, my intention
has been to explore some possible points of contact between action research studies and
language teaching methodologies. The SOAR study was also intended to help to identify
significant issues relating to the adoption of action research approaches in the Turkish
context.

Chapter Seven 169
CHAPTER SEVEN
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
Research is never conducted without reference to other studies. It
can always rely on previous knowledge and experience. This
means that rather than having to justify every measurement theory
and thus every indicator, researchers can call on other people’s
work. (Gilbert 1995, p.29)
Introduction
This chapter explains the methodological strategies and decisions that were put into
practice beyond those explained in Chapter 6. In fact, the choice of the AR approach,
and some other principles explained in Chapter 6 were a part of the principles of
accepted methodology in this study. In this context I shall explain the theoretical bases
of the implementation of the AR study, the design of this study, methods of data
collection, criteria of data analysis and criteria of reportage of analysis respectively.
7.1. Review of Literature and Rationale
In the first chapter I showed that the notion of AR was a new phenomenon in the cultural
and educational context of this study. The review of the archives of the HEC in Turkey
also indicated that only a few AR studies had been carried out in Turkey: Tomakin
(1996), Atikler (1997), Onel (1998). The first one investigated the feasibility of
employing an AR study. The second investigated one teacher’s experience of AR. The
last one investigated the influence of the AR approach on teachers’ reflectivity and
professional development. It seemed that the exploration of contextual elements, the
views about the introduction and initiation of AR studies and the relation of A
R and
language teaching theories remained unexplored. Hence I investigated these points in
Chapters 3, 4, and 5. These points were also part of the focus of my FOAR.
The study was conducted by using a mixture of the AR and CS approaches. The reasons
for using the AR approach were explained in Chapter 1 and the literature of AR was
reviewed in Chapter 4 in order to answer the 2nd
research question. So this chapter
mainly aims to explain the reasons for using the case study (CS) approach.

Chapter Seven 170
Researchers undertaking research in their classrooms usually deal with their unique and
practical situations such as their lessons, students, etc, and “ the CS approach
comfortably fits into AR framework” (Wallace 1998, p.17). Hence specific focus
through the CS approach becomes an advantage for action researchers. The other
advantages of using the CS approach to data collection and analysis are stated by
researchers as follows:
CSs aim to understand a situation (in this case the work of a small number of teachers)
through ‘in depth’ data collection (Punch 1998, p.150), Cresswell (1998, p.61), (Hamel,
Defour & Fortin 1993, p.1). Through CS one can produce a ‘holistic’ description and an
analysis of the case(s) (Marriam 1988, p.xiv, Denscombe 1998, p.31, Robson 1993,
p.40). One can use the CS approach to study an ‘innovation’ (Simons 1987, p.67 and
Powell & Gray 1981, p.199). Briefly, the CS approach refers to a specific focus or
limitation of the study to a case or cases, yet this approach requires detailed data
collection and analysis.
Given the context, the AR undertaken in Turkey was an innovation because it was used
for the first time in the three participating schools and the participant teachers’ teaching
careers, during English language sessions. By studying the bounded systems (schools),
‘in-depth’ data collection for three years enabled me to produce a general account of the
cases. Here the term ‘cases’ is used because three schools were studied. In this sense the
study can be considered multi-site CS (Robson 1995, Yin 1989, Miles & Huberman
1994). [see sections 7.7.4., 7.7.5. and 7.7.6. for more information about the cases in
theory and in this study].
7.2. Nature of This Study
As stated in 7.1., this AR study was undertaken by using the CS approach. So one may
ask which part is AR? and which part is CS?. As seen in Chapter 4 AR is a multi-
purpose approach and used as a research method (Nunan 1994, p.17). In this case one
can use AR while collecting and analysing data, producing statements or hypotheses
with a qualitative approach. AR can be used while testing a hypothesis with a
quantitative approach. One can also use the AR approach while teaching. To that end
teachers collect and analyse data and produce action plans for various purposes (e.g. to
discover more effective teaching strategies). For instance, Elliott (1995, p. 10) explains
this point by saying that “action research integrates teaching and research”.

Chapter Seven 171
AR, being a spiral process, enabled the teachers and me to collect data from pupils in
Turkey in order to learn their likes and strengths in relation to the selected topic.
Analysis of this data also enabled us to produce action plans, i.e. a set of strategies
jointly decided by teachers and me for teaching the selected topic. In this sense, the
process of data collection, analysis and production of action plans can be seen as a
research process. And the process of implementing the action plans can be seen as a
teaching process. [see Chapter 6 to review action plans].
Apart from the noted teaching and researching functions of AR, this study may be
conceptualised differently by its readers because the notion of AR is classified, as seen
in Chapter 4, in several ways and it is possible to give more than one meaning to the
design of the study. For instance, this AR study can be regarded as Practical AR (Carr &
Kemmis 1989) because it aimed to increase participant teachers’ understanding of AR,
action plans, vocabulary teaching and language teaching.
Secondly, the study can be seen as ‘illuminative’ (Parlett 1982, p.187) in the sense that
my views and decisions are included while writing chapters of the study. Thirdly, this
study may be seen as ‘heuristic research’ (Wallace 1998, p.43) because it both
investigated the selected topic and tried to explore problems that became clear after the
initiation of the study.
Fourthly, it can be seen as an “Educational CS or an AR CS” in Stenhouse’s terms
(1985, p.646) because the study tried to enrich teachers’ understanding of AR, pupils’
view of action plans, etc. It could also be seen as Emancipatory AR because efforts were
made to empower participant teachers with new knowledge and skills. Although
emancipatory AR requires an overall change of the current system (Carr & Kemmis
1989), we were aware that attempting a complete change in schools was beyond our
power. Briefly, the study can be interpreted in many ways and this interpretation
depends mostly on readers.
7.3. Gaining Access
The research sites (schools) were in Turkey. This was to enable me to explore the ways
of introducing AR and conducting an AR study in several schools during English lessons
in Turkey. To undertake an actual AR study, it became necessary for me to go to the

Chapter Seven 172
research site, to enter schools and classrooms. So access to research site, to enter schools
and classrooms happened in the following ways in 1997, 1998 and 1999.
To begin with two field studies were conducted in Turkey in order to a) identify the
participants of this study, b) investigate the potential areas (curriculum study, syllabus
design, Inset activity, etc.) I would study during my Ph.D. research and c) see the
possibility of getting legal permission from authorities (the LEA and schools) in Ordu.
The schools in which the study was conducted are annexed to the LEA and getting legal
permission to undertake research in schools was an inevitable legal necessity.
Gaining access through field studies also gave me an opportunity to consider in detail
the school and classroom context and language teaching situations in classrooms before
the implementation of this study. This was not among my prime research objectives, but
it enriched my understanding. For example, Kemmis & McTaggart (1988, p.54) stated
that, “we must have a basis for our plan- an initial view of what our situation is...”.
Elliott (1991, p.73) also states that, “one needs to describe as fully as possible the nature
of the situation one wants changed and improved”. Other researchers who state the
necessity of describing the base line are Ebbutt (1985, p.147), Hopkins (1996, p.63), and
McNiff (1996, p.57).
Although the methodology chapters of most research books require ‘negotiation’ of
access to research sites (Bell 1995, p.52), “written permission from parents” (Stake
1995, p.57) and “informed consent” Hornsby-Smith (1996, p.63), gaining access to
schools and classrooms in Turkey takes place as follows. One may go to any school as a
visitor or enter a classroom as a researcher, but both of them require permission. Access
to schools as a visitor requires no legal permission, but access to classrooms as a
researcher requires getting a legal permission from the school management, the LEA and
the governor of the city.
At the outset of the study various schools were visited, but four schools were included
during the FFW and SFW in 1997, but SOAR was undertaken in three schools in 1998
and 1999. One of the schools was single sex (girls) and the others were co-educational.
The following diary note explains how schools keep a register for visitors:
I undertook this research in 3 different schools as happened last
year. There are a few male pupils who serve as warders at the gate
of the school garden. There are a few female pupils who serve as

Chapter Seven 173
warders at the main door of the school. Sometimes male
sometimes female pupils keep a register of visitors and get the
following details of visitors: name, surname and signature..., the
name of the person who will be visited, arrival and departure time
of visitors, etc. Whenever I visit these schools, they write my
name, surname, ... in that register. (diary 25/3/1999 p.79)
My first access to schools happened during the FFW. Some schools took my identity
card and kept it until I left the school. Other schools wrote down my identity details and
the pupils serving as warders asked the name of the person I would like to talk to and
said ‘I want to talk to English language teachers’ and went to the staff room. In the staff
room sometimes I interviewed volunteer teachers and went through a questionnaire too.
The aim of my classroom observations during the SFW was t
o identify what English
language teachers do and how they teach English in classrooms. The first application
for access to classrooms was made on 6/11/1997 with a letter to the governor, who
signed and referred it to the head of the LEA. This head also referred the letter from one
department to another and permission [official letter] was finally given on 10/11/1997.
This permission enabled me to enter classrooms as a direct observer in 1997 and 1998
[see appendix L].
After finishing the 1st
cycle of SOAR from March to the end of May 1998, I returned to
the UK and worked on data transcription and analysis until the next academic year. The
2nd
cycle of the SOAR study was implemented from March to mid-May in 1999 in
Turkey, but I had to get legal permission again. I wrote a letter on 12/4/1999, followed
the previous year’s procedures and permission was given the same day.
7.4. Selection of Participants
It can be stated that the selection of participants in qualitative research depends on
researchers’ intentions, research design, contextual conditions, etc., though researchers
often use “convenience, purposive and snowball sampling” strategies among others.
Hence researchers consider the ‘typicality or interest’ of individuals in the CS (Robson
1995, p.141). This implies that researchers are in a position to include people
(appropriate participants such as teachers, pupils, schools, etc.) who will best serve the
goal of their research.

Chapter Seven 174
Some researchers support the idea of purposive sampling while using the CS approach.
For example, Stenhouse (1979, p.9) considers all studies as “the study of cases...” and
states that a sample of cases chosen by social scientists refers to a representative sample
of the class. For Patton (1987, p.51-52) the benefit of the ‘purposive sampling’ is to
choose ‘information-rich cases’ for the study. This means that researchers have the
freedom to include useful things or to exclude non-useful things in the study. In addition,
Miles & Huberman (1994b, p.27) state the necessity of including “small samples of
people” in qualitative research. Moreover, Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) state that, “AR
starts small” (p.24), and “it is generally wise to start small”. Finally, in Stake’s (1995,
p.56) view researchers must have the “connoisseur’s appetite” while choosing “the best
persons, places and occasions”.
The procedure and process applied to choosing the participants of this study were based
on the above stated literature. As stated in Chapter 6, a questionnaire was designed and
applied to choose participants during the FFW [see appendix G]. As noted in Chapter 6
again, this questionnaire aimed at identifying the potential teachers who wanted to learn
the notion of AR and take part in an AR project. The questionnaire included 25 options
and the following items were included to choose potential participants:
- to learn research methods and to become a teacher researcher,
- to develop a problem solving approach to student learning,
- to become a reflective teacher rather than a passive teacher.
For instance, one of the teachers’ (BA) choices were a) learning the use of computer, b)
attending social and cultural activities and c) understanding the cultural background of
students. So the following reference explains the necessity of including appropriate
participants as follows:
There is no point in inviting people who are hostile, indifferent to
your research to be in your validation group.
(Mcniff et al. 1996, p.109)
This suggested that I should include the participants who were interested in undertaking
research and wanted to learn about AR. Based on these criteria and teachers’ answers to
the questionnaire seven teachers were chosen in the FFW.

Chapter Seven 175
However, when I was arranging a meeting with teachers in order to choose a topic [the
focus of SOAR] to study, I felt that I should reduce the number of the participant
teachers. At that time both T7 and I were trying to find teachers’ free times to have a
meeting and talking about change, action plans, and collaboration in AR studies. Once
when explaining the meaning of ‘collaboration’ in AR study, T7 said:
I do not have good relations with T6 due to an angry discussion. I
cannot come together or work together to collaborate during the
research process. I can come together once with all the other
participant teachers.... (diary, 12/3/1998 p.27)
Although T6 and T7 seemed to have less or no social relations, both of them were
included because both were teaching at the same school and same class (Prep B). Both
of them were involved in the study in 1998 and 1999. Both joined the topic selection
meeting, but I saw them individually in 1998. In 1999 both seemed to have good
relations, and attended meetings several times to study the materials I created.
Although T3 was involved in the study during the FFW and SFW, a couple of days
before the topic selection meeting I was told that T6 did not have a good relationship
with T3. T6 stated this by saying “we don’t see each other, we don’t talk to each other”
(9/4/1998). Hence, I did not or could not include her in the rest of study. T2 verified this
point as follows. Before implementing the 2nd
cycle of SOAR in 1999, each participant
teacher was interviewed to get his or her agreement about interim data analysis. While
interviewing T2 on this occasion, T2 verified T6’s tense relations with T3 by saying “T3
and T6 were sisters in-law, you hit the target” (int. 25/3/1999).
T1 was eager to join in my study, but she withdrew from the study voluntarily as
explained by the following diary note;
I still try to have a meeting with teachers. I visited the single sex
school and talked to T1. She says I’m ill for one month, I was
absent from school last week and I’m going to set examinations
for pupils this week. I suffer from flu and cold... I asked “can you
carry on the study? Do you think you can be helpful? She says “to
tell the truth I think I cannot give more help... If I carried on, I
would prefer studying grammar, ...(diary, 31/3/1998, p.29)
This teacher (T1) withdrew from the study because of her illness and her choice of topic.
No comment is possible about her illness, but her second reason requires a further
explanation. The topic she wanted to study if she continued her participation was

Chapter Seven 176
English grammar, but I managed to have my first meeting with the other participants to
choose a topic on 17/4/1998, nearly one year after T1’s withdrawal. As I reported in
Chapter 4 the topic to be studied in this AR study must be chosen by all participants and
not imposed ‘top-down’. When T1 said that she wanted to study grammar, it was not
possible for me to say yes or no about T1’s topic without before having had a meeting
with the other teachers. Thus, it can be seen that not only the theory of research
methodology, but also some elements in the cultural context of this study determined the
choice of participants.
Profiles of Teachers
T1: T1 was a female teacher and taught at a single sex school. She was involved during
the FFW and SFW in the study, but she withdrew from the study because of her illness.
T2: T2 was a female teacher and taught at a co-educational high school, running a
double-session programme. T2 graduated from 19 May University in 1986, was
appointed as a language teacher in the same year and had been teaching English for
twelve years. As seen in Chapter 5, she was good at memorising new words when she
was an undergraduate at that university. She preferred teaching through dialogue,
patterns, sentences, etc. She was around thirty years old.
(quest. 25/5/1998, int. 14/5/1999)
T3: T3 was a female teacher and taught at a co-educational high school. She was
involved in the study during the FFW and SFW, but she could not be involved in the
study because of TBRs.
T4: T4 was a male teacher and taught at a primary education school, running a double-
session programme. He graduated from the Foreign Language School of Ataturk
University in 1978 and was appointed as a language teacher. He had been teaching
English for twenty years. He used to study/learn English by ‘by memorising, and using
the new sentences in pattern sentences’. In his view English must be taught through
dialogues and sentences at the beginning. He was around 45 years old.
(quest. 25/5/1998, int. 12/5/1999).
T5: T5 was a female teacher and taught English at the same school as T4. She graduated
from 19 May University and started teaching English in 1987. She liked the translation
module very much when she was an undergraduate. She preferred teaching through
dialogues, sentences, pictures, etc. She had been teaching English about 14 years. She
was around 35 years old. (quest. 25/5/1998, int. 13/5/1999).
T6: T6 was a female teacher and taught at a language-based high school. She finished
Eskisehir Institute of Education and later on did one year's study to become a faculty
graduate. She greatly liked English module among others and she used to study by
writing when she was an undergraduate. She had been teaching English for 22 years and
she retired in September 1999. She was around 40 years old.
(quest. 25/5/1998, int. 14/5/1999)

Chapter Seven 177
T7: T7 was a male teacher and taught English at the same school as T6. He graduated
from Middle East Technical University and started to teach in 1993. Listening, drawing
and solving exercises were useful for him while learning English. The school where he
finished does not run a I T T programme. He had been teaching English for five years
and was around thirty. (quest. 25/5/1999, int. 14/5/1999)
7.5. Ethical Procedures of This Study
For Punch (1998) there are two types of ethical concerns in all social research; one is
about codes of ethical rules [already identified], the other is researchers’ views about
these ethical rules. It seems that the identification of these rules constitutes an important
part of social studies and researchers state the following views about ethical rules.
For example, Miles & Huberman (1994b, p.289) state that “ethical issues are floating
constantly...” and qualitative researchers have no well-devised set of ethical guidelines
that are used across a range of disciplines. In Stenhouse’s (1985) view no researcher
should initiate CS research without considering ethical problems.
Although ethical rules are emphasised, it may be not always possible to implement
ethical rules while doing a ‘covert observation’, or while “observing pre-school or
nursery children because these little children presumably are not aware of informed
consent” (Miles & Huberman 1994b, p.351-353). However, Stake (1995, p.57) states the
necessity of getting written permission from parents of pupils.
Despite the diversity of ethical rules, most papers explain ethical rules by using some
common concepts such as “privacy, anonymity, confidentiality, betrayal, deception,
consent, informed consent, harm and risk, ownership of data..., intervention and
advocacy...” (Robson 1995, Punch 1998, Miles & Huberman 1994b).
The ethical rules of this study refer to a set of rules and regulations agreed by
participants and me and the following steps were taken while identifying these rules.
First, a literature review was conducted beforehand to explore the ethical principles and
procedures used in social science and AR. Then the ethical rules cited in different
references were collected and produced as a report. In fact, this report was the first topic
of the study materials that consisted of 25 different topics [see appendix K]. I believed
that the ethical principles and procedures that would govern this study should be
identified at the beginning of research.

Chapter Seven 178
In order to prepare the ethical statement (or rules) the following references were used: a)
Appendix B of Robson’s book (1995), about Ethical Principles for Conducting Research
with Human Participants (British Psychological Society), p.470-475), b) from the same
book Appendix C, about Guidelines on Anti-Sexist Language, (British Sociological
Association), p. 476-478, c) Elliott’s (1985) views about ‘Facilitating AR in schools:
some dilemmas’ in R. G. Burgess (1985’ p. 235-262), d) Kemmis & McTaggart’s views
of ethical rules in Robson (1993) and Hopkins (1996).
Second, study materials about AR were given to each participant teacher during the
SFW in 1997. Although several attempts were made during my classroom observations
to have a meeting with teachers and to identify the ethical rules of this study, this effort
became unsuccessful for reasons already given in Chapter 6 [see p.145].
Chapter 6 indicated that my classroom observations in Turkey started in the second
week of November and continued till mid-December. Although I was observing seven
English language teachers’ teaching sessions, time was passing and it seemed difficult to
convene with all teachers because of clashing teaching hours and double session
programmes in schools. To save time some draft rules of ethical procedures on the basis
of the above noted references were prepared and given to each participant teacher.
Finally, a footnote was included for the teachers, asking them to write down their
suggestions, etc. about the draft.
Having collected the draft rules a few weeks later, it was seen that only one teacher [T3]
added her views about the evaluation of this AR study. On the base of that draft plan and
T3’s views, I reproduced the ethical rules and procedure of this study. The rules and
principles were as follows:
-The word ‘participants’ refers to teachers who have been involved in this study.
Participation in the study is voluntary and participants have the right to withdraw from
the research whenever they want. [see the heading 7.4. in this chapter for more
information about the participants].
-The word ‘critical friend or external researcher’ refers to me, E. Tomakin.
-The word ‘LEA’ refers to Milli Egitim Mudurlugu in Ordu, (that is a city located
in the north of Turkey).
-The schools included in this study are KML, OATML HSTIO and OAL.[see
8.1.1. to 8.1.1.2. for more information about schools].

Chapter Seven 179
-Participants have the right to take legal action if they feel that the research is
misused.
-Participants have the right to change the previously accepted rules or to offer
new rules whenever they want on condition that all agree.
-Participants have the right to ask for help/guidance from me (provider).
-Participants have the right to choose problems or issues for their investigation.
-Participants have given me authority to assess or evaluate collected information
for my research purpose. The final decision making process will be discussed with
participants. Participants will be asked to give permission in every academic year. [see
the heading 97 for criticism of this rule].
-Participants agree on anonymity of calling them T1, T2, T3, etc. The letter ‘T’
stands for teacher.
-Required materials are provided by me (files, diary, photocopy, etc.).
-Getting permission from the authorities throughout for research is actively my
responsibility (LEA, the governor of Ordu and head teachers).
-Participants, head teachers, the LEA and parents of pupils have a right to know
about the outcome of the study at the end of each year.
-Participants will be informed correctly about the research process and
outcomes. No information or report will be held from the participants. I take
responsibility for preparing a general report at the end of each action cycle.
-The LEA and head teachers’ intervention will be disallowed, but they have the
right to ask for a report at the end of each action cycle.
-Three meetings will be held during the implementation of each action cycle.[ see
9.7 for the criticism].
-Teachers agree that collaboration will take place among teachers who work at
the same school.
-While evaluating the general outcome of the research, differences among
students, schools should be considered. e.g. number of pupils in each classroom,
background of pupils, teaching materials provided to teachers, etc.
Although the above mentioned ethical rules and procedures were agreed during
the SFW, a self-critique is needed to explain to what extent I was able to abide by these
rules. These will be explained respectively.
Participation: Only volunteer teachers and pupils were included, observed or
interviewed.

Chapter Seven 180
Withdrawal: T1 withdrew from the research on her wish. In addition, T3 was not
involved in the research during the implementation of action plans.
Materials: A diary and an arch file were given to all teachers at the beginning of
the research. Besides this, some study materials on AR were produced and given to each
teacher during the SFW in 1997. In addition, I paid all expenses (photocopies,
stationary, travel fees, etc.).
Change of Rules: No change was suggested in 1998 and 1999.
Choice of Topic/Issues: The focus of the study (SAOR) was chosen on 17/4/1998
on the basis of teachers’ suggestions and agreement. In addition, the action plans applied
in 1998 and 1999 were chosen and applied on agreement.
Confidentiality: No information was treated as confidential. Each participant saw
the transcriptions of all data and gave me authority to use them for my research purpose.
Meetings: Although it was decided to have three meetings during the
implementation of each action cycle, only one group meeting was held in three years.
Each teacher was seen individually in the rest of the study
Negotiation of Analysis: In 1998 T6 and in 1999 T6 and T7 did not return
transcriptions and interim data analysis. So the data analysis was completed on
previously given permission.
7.6. Data Collection Methods
Researchers’ goals, the nature of research (naturalistic, explanatory, experimental etc.),
the research context, etc. may determine data collections tools (Denscombe 1998, Punch
1998). Since we deal with people and their ‘actions’ during the qualitative research
process (Miles & Huberman 1994b, p.10), it was believed that the methods that would
be used to collect data must be suitable to understand or to interpret people and their
actions. In this study it was necessary for me to talk to participants, pupils, head teachers
to learn about their views. It was also necessary to observe what and how they (teachers,
pupils, etc.) do when a SOAR was put into practice. That is, their views about the
objectives of the study explored by talking, observing, etc. Hence ‘interview and
observation’ methods were mainly used to collect data from others. Besides this, a I kept
a ‘research diary’ to record what I did or observed. In addition, some of data was
collected through documents and photographs. These will be explained individually.

Chapter Seven 181
7.6.1. Diary
Bailey (1997, p.215) defines keeping a diary in terms of language teaching/learning and
states that “a diary is a first-person account of language learning or teaching
experience”. In general diaries can be kept by learners, teachers and researchers for
various purposes and in language studies teachers keep a diary to help understand
students’ reactions to courses and to document teachers’ learning and teaching
experience (Bailey 1997).
It is possible to see many terms for the practice of keeping a written record, such as
diary, log, aide-memoir, journal and dialogue journal. Focusing on only two, “a diary is
a personal document”, whereas “the journal is a more general tool” (McKernan 1991,
p.84). For Genesee & Upshur (1996, p.119) “journals are written conversations between
students and teachers”.
The diary I kept throughout my research enabled me to record my “hunches, ideas and
feelings” (Burgess 1981, p.76). The diary notes reflect my initial feeling about AR
(3/7/1997, p.2). These notes are about the possible use of an experimental method in AR
(29/7/1997, p.5). They not only explain my feelings about research bias and intervention,
but they also reveal my feelings about the failure of research or researchers (14/11/1997,
p.14). They are about the problems I experienced while undertaking this research
(15/11/1997, p. 15), (27/4/1998, p.33); my classroom observations (5/5/1999, p.114),
(12/5/1999, p.133) etc.; some key points about interviews (18/3/1999, p.75), (22/3/1999,
p.77) etc.; my visits to the LEA in Ordu (12/5/1999, p.133) and the HEC in Ankara
(6/4/1999, p.82-83). These notes reveal some issues about the cases. Briefly, although
my diary includes about 150 pages of written notes and 140 entries about this study, it
was impossible to include all of them in the thesis.
After numbering each page from beginning to end and choosing a structure to write
notes in it, I kept writing my ideas, observations, etc. In writing these notes Altrichter et
al.’s (1993) structure was used throughout the research. In this structure, researchers put
some entry words to the left margin of the page such as TN [theoretical note], MN
[methodological note], ON [observational note] etc. For example, the following sample
shows the structure of my research diary:
TN It is claimed that AR studies aim at improving
whole school whole schools. But it seems that whole school

Chapter Seven 182
approach approach depends on selected topic. By this I
I mean that if the selected topic is more general
as it happened in the FTP, it then seems to ....
However, if the selected topic is specific to a
classroom or a student it is not possible and there
is no need to involve all other teachers.
(1/8/1997, p.8, Norwich).
Before analysing the data written in the diary, an index of diary notes was produced. The
following example illustrates the form of that index. This index helped to find entries
easily and saved time in finding parts of a topic written on different dates. According to
this index, my views about AR had been written nine times by the end of SFW.
Page No Date Topic
13 5/11/1997 Identification of ethical rules,
13 7/11/1997 My views about not using tally sheet,
13 7/11/1997 My note on teachers’ diary,
14 11/11/1997 Observation-explanation of my observation,
14 14/11/1997 The meaning of investigative skills,
14 14/11/1997 The failure of research of researcher,
15-16 15/11/1997 Problem while getting permission from the LEA,
..... .......... ...........................................
Although each participant teacher was given a diary to write their views about AR,
action plans, etc. during my FFW in 1997, it seemed that either teachers were not eager
to write notes in their diaries or there were other reasons that prevented them from
writing. For instance, after implementing the 2nd
cycle of SOAR, the first teacher I asked
questions about diary keeping was T4 (int. 12/5/1999). The teacher said “ well, diary,
yes I remember, you gave us...”. Briefly, since T4 did not seem too happy in answering
my question, no more questions were asked about diary keeping. However, It was T5,
who gave me information about diary-keeping although I was trying to get her views
about action plans at that time. The italic part in the following extract explains the point:
T5: ...very different things emerged as a result of using this
association, nearly every pupil created a new thing about this
issue. That is to say, different things were said by different pupils
in each classroom, they are interesting, in fact if we wrote these as
notes, more interesting things would appear possibly, teaching
through association became easy.
ET: in general, did the application of AR affect the teaching of
English...? (int. 13/5/1999)

Chapter Seven 183
The extract suggests two things: first, this teacher (T5) did not keep a diary, second, the
other teachers did not keep a diary either because T5 used the subject pronoun ‘We’
rather than ‘I’. Briefly, my research diary became a source for me to write some parts of
the thesis. This diary keeps both the data about the study and my memory in it.
7.6.2. Interviews
Interviews can be used for literate and non-literate respondents and can occur in many
forms, depending on researchers’ purposes. They can be between teacher and pupil,
observer and pupil, pupil and pupil or teacher and observer (Hopkins 1996). It seems
that the format of interviews varies according to researchers’ objectives. It also seems
that commonly agreed formats for interviewing are structured, semi-structured or
unstructured interviews [Robson (1995), Fielding (1996), Cohen & Manion (1996),
Brown & Dowling (1998)].
Although Robson (1995, p.328) defines an interview as “a kind of conversation... with a
purpose”, “an interview is more than an interesting conversation” for Hopkins (1996,
p.94). The latter view is used in this study because much of the data about the objectives
of the research was collected through interviews. Using prompts and asking probing
questions are useful techniques to gather information. Prompts provide a set of possible
answers for the respondents, whereas probing involves asking further questions about
the respondents’ answers. That is, probing refers to asking “follow up questions” about
answers (Fielding 1996, p.140).
From the beginning of my research to the end a semi-structured model was used because
this format enabled my respondents (teachers, pupils, head teachers, etc.) and me to
move around a framework. The format of my interviews enabled me to ask direct
questions about the ‘research questions and objectives’. In addition, it is our knowledge
from Chapter 4 that both the process and the product of AR studies are evaluated. In
order to ask questions about the elements of each action cycle [planning, acting,
reflecting, etc.], using a semi-structured interview was very useful in supporting the
asking of direct questions about these elements.
Patton’s (1987) view was another reason for using semi-structured interviews because in
his view informal or unstructured interviews usually take researchers’ time. I was the
only person, who prepared and provided materials, undertook observations and

Chapter Seven 184
interviews, wrote my own diary, collected documents about the study, took notes about
the key points of interviews, ..., and prepared the next task. That is, there was no help
with paper work, transcriptions, etc. and the use of semi-structured interview was a
means of limiting time taken by interviews.
Although a semi-structured format was employed, it does not mean that I did not pin
down respondents’ answers. For Fielding (1996) and Brown & Dowling (1998) asking
further questions is called ‘probing’ if something is not clear. For Langley (1991) asking
for detailed information is called “in-depth interviews” (p.23). No matter what it is
called, both probing and an in-depth approach were used whenever needed. For example,
the data analysis of the 1st
cycle of SOAR indicated that there were two major sources of
barriers to the implementation of the study in Turkey. These barriers were named as
‘teacher-based reasons’ (TBR) and ‘system-based reasons’ (SBR). Each of which
included important issues that needed to be addressed before undertaking the 2nd
cycle of
the study in 1999. [see sections 8.9.1. and 8.6.2. in Chapter 8].
While investigating the TBR, some prompts were used as initiative to encourage
teachers such as, could this and this.... be a reason in choosing your friends. As
explained in this chapter [see 7.4.], some teachers had reservations about joining in the
research project. In order to explore teachers’ reasons for having reservations, I kept
asking questions about them in 1999. Briefly, prompts were used for providing a few
alternative answers or by paraphrasing the previous answer. [see the heading 8.9.1 for
more information about the TBRs].
Although the idea of the “group interview” is suggested by Hopkins (1996, p.124),
Fielding (1996, p.141) and others, it was used only once when interviewing T4’s pupils
in 1998. In these interviews nearly every pupil started saying, “as my friend said...”. It
seemed that pupils were repeating the previous respondents’ views. After I realised the
shortcoming of this technique, I did not use it any more and each pupil was interviewed
individually.
Some suggest that the researcher’s status, appearance, behaviour, gender and social
relations, etc. may influence respondents’ answers. (e.g. Langley 1991, Brown &
Dowling 1998, Hopkins 1996). In order to try not to influence participants I often said,
‘this is a collaborative AR, based on discussion and agreement, we may find some good
results or we may experience some problems, the important thing is to apply action plans

Chapter Seven 185
as much as possible and explore the problems of the study’. The aim of saying this was
to make sure that the participant teachers do not feel that t
hey were being examined. I
deliberately dressed down; the clothes I wore were an ordinary tie, jacket, trousers, etc.
All the interviews were tape recorded, transcribed and translated into English. The
interview questions were asked in Turkish. This was because teachers could answer
them in English, but it was impossible for pupils and head teachers who were not
English speakers.
7.6.3. Observations
Observations in social research are dependant upon the researcher’s intentions and
research designs. One can observe behaviours, events, people, actions, etc. as a direct
observer or as a participant. The former refers to watching without joining in, whereas
the latter refers to joining in something (Robson 1995). In general, three types of
observation appear in published sources namely; open observations, focused
observations and structured observations (Hopkins 1996). In open observation the
researcher usually uses a blank piece of paper and a pencil and jots down their interests.
In focused observation the researcher’s interest is on a specific topic or issue. In the
structured observations the researcher may use various types of pre-selected diagrams,
grids, tally sheets, check lists etc.
The question of which one is better than the others? is answered by Denscombe (1998),
who states that going to the field not with pre-established hypotheses, but with a flexible
plan is a good idea. This does not mean that qualitative researchers must not go into the
field with a pre-selected topic or issue to observe. On the contrary, it means that it is
better if researchers use unstructured observations in qualitative research while
investigating their concerns in the field (Punch 1998). In the same context Sarantakos
(1998) states that the researcher’s task in the field is to learn about the things s/he will
observe.
It seems that researchers interchangeably use open, naturalistic and unstructured
observations. In these types of observations researchers do not manipulate and stimulate
the behaviour of those who are observed (Punch 1998). These observations are useful to
describe the research context (Walker 1990) and to generate hypotheses (Bell 1995).

Chapter Seven 186
Other important issues in observations are the identification of focus and observer
effects. Wragg (1994) and Bell (1995) state that the identification of purpose precedes
the implementation of the observation task. Although Hopkins (1996) states the
importance of joint planning by teachers and researchers, I identified the focus of the
SFW. The reason was that I could not have a meeting with participant teachers to choose
a topic and study it during my SOAR.
In fact, it was a general focus, not a specific one and my intention was to observe
(identify) how English language teachers teach and what they do in classrooms. To that
end open [naturalistic] observation was used with a pen and a piece of paper for each
observation session. Not only teacher initiated verbal or physical action, tasks, use of
body language (gesture, mime,), etc. were recorded, but also the frequency of each item
was noted. The following extract taken from the SFW observation illustrates one of the
observational notes.
Date:19.11.1997 Teacher: T5
Time:02:10 Nr of Ss:42
School: H. S. T. Ilkogretim Grade: 7-D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st hour
T asked motivation qs [seven times]. pronunciation
(Two third, all of the Ss raised their hands up) question-answer
T explained new topic by action/demonstration [twice]. repetition
70 % E, 30 % T
E.g. tall taller No com in E a. Ss
T asks q to 1 S, gets correct answer [11 times].
T explains the rule in Turkish [twice].
T gives order/task Ss to do [nine times].
T has Ss repeat words [six times].
T refuses the wrong answer, asks another Ss [twice].
......................................
The focus of my classroom observations was on action plans in 1998 and 1999 while
implementing the 1st
and 2nd
cycles of SOAR in classrooms. Here action plans refer to
several strategies to teach the focus of the SOAR. Data for those action strategies were
collected from pupils and teachers and action plans were produced by teachers and me.
As a direct observer in classrooms my task was to observe whether or not teachers
implemented action plans. My task was also to observe how and to what extent those
action plans were implemented by teachers.
During the SFW an A4 size paper was used for each observation, but during the
implementation of action plans in 1998 and 1999 the notes about observation sessions

Chapter Seven 187
were written in my research diary. Although Janesick (1994, p.212) states that research
questions and objectives form one’s biases, I tried to be impartial and not to include my
“judgements” (Hopkins 1996, p.84) while taking those observational notes. All of the
lessons observed were tape recorded, transcribed and translated into English.
The observer effect, as it happened in interviews, etc., seems to be of significance
because “...people may behave quite differently when they know they are being observed
...” (Patton 1987, p.77). He (ibid.) maintains that doing ‘covert observation’ can solve
this problem, but this raises serious moral and ethical issues. To eliminate this problem
“minimal interaction and habitation” are two of the suggestions to minimise the observer
effects (Robson 1995, p.209). The former refers to researchers’ avoidance of eye
contact with teacher, whereas the latter refers to repeated presence of researchers in the
research context. That is, the researchers seemto be a part of that context.
In this project it was possible that my being present in classrooms would influence
teachers’ behaviour and teaching style. In one sense this can be taken as a negative or
observer effect. In another sense this can be taken as a positive step because we know
from Chapter 4 that one of the objectives of using AR was to ‘make changes’ in the
current system (Nunan 1994, Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, Cohen & Manion 1996). It
means that if the participant teachers changed their behaviours or teaching style because
of my presence in classrooms, this was in a sense what I wanted. That is, to make
changes through the use of AR on the current method of teaching English was one of the
goals of this study. Besides, this change would signify a change from the traditional way
of teaching to the implementation of action plans. Therefore, the effect of the observer
would not simply be distorting, but would lead the study in the hoped for direction.
In general it becomes difficult for researchers to understand teachers’ use of action plans
in classrooms from observations alone. That is, it is usually impossible for researchers to
understand the ideas, views, etc. in someone’s mind.
7.6.4. Audio-tape Recording
Audio-tape recording is one of the popular data collection tools and this part can also be
included within ‘interviewing’ (Hopkins 1996). Although the transcription of those
recordings is time consuming, transcriptions are useful in that they enable (teachers)
researchers to listen to tapes several times and analyse data in detail. Detailed analysis

Chapter Seven 188
allows researchers to genuinely explore what happened in classrooms. The other
advantage of tape recording and transcriptions is that we never lose any data because we
record everything, but we may lose some data while taking observational notes.
The tape recorder used during interviews and observations was a voice-activated
Walkman. It automatically starts recording when conversation begins and stops when
speech ends. While observing classrooms, I sat at the back of the room so as to influence
pupils as little as possible. At this point a brief description of classrooms may be helpful
to explain how I tried to overcome the observer effect.
The shape of classrooms is usually rectangular in Ordu [Turkey] [see pp.31-48]. There is
a chair and a table for teachers in each classroom. Pupils sit in twos on benches and
share a desk and pupils face towards the blackboard. There are three columns of desks.
One is by the window, one is near the wall and the other is in the middle. There are 5 to
7 desks in each column.
Since I sat at the back desk during classroom observations, pupils were not able to see
me unless they turned their heads left or right or looked round. Therefore, I assumed that
when the lesson had started, most of the pupils sitting in front or in the middle desks
might have forgotten my presence in the classroom, (at least for the most part).
While tape recording interviews and classroom observations, I took some notes about
the key points of interviews and observations and carried out the data gathering by using
those notes. That is, it was practically impossible to transcribe a 40 minute classroom
observation, or ten to twenty minute interview straight after recording. Most of the
transcriptions, translations and data analysis were done in Britain.
7.6.5. Questionnaires
Questionnaires are an easy and quick way of getting information from participants
(Hopkins 1996). Although questionnaires are a popular means of data collection,
‘design, preparation and selection of question words’ always need expert skill and take
time (Nunan 1994). He (ibid.) also states that researchers must hide their points of view
while asking questions. Good questionnaires ask neither complex nor confusing
questions and each question (open or closed) approaches one issue at a time.

Chapter Seven 189
The questionnaire was first used while investigating the potential participants of this
study during the FFW [see appendix G]. That questionnaire included a few items about
the goals of AR and specifically the aim was to explore if any teacher had the motivation
to learn the concept of AR and take part in a study. Considering the goals of the study
while producing questions for questionnaires has been stated as follows:
It is important, first of all, to be very clear about the objectives of
the study, and each item should be directly referenced against one
or more of the research objectives. (Nunan 1994, p. 145)
As my objective during the FFW was to identify potential teachers who might want to
learn about AR and join in my study, those who were eager to participate in a research
project and had a positive attitude towards it were chosen.
In the second case a questionnaire was designed and employed after finishing the 1st
cycle of SOAR in 1998 to triangulate questionnaire results with the interview results that
had been undertaken before. In this way the use of questionnaire gave me an opportunity
to triangulate teachers’ views of action research, action plans, etc. Briefly, questionnaires
were used twice to collect and triangulate data [see appendix P].
7.6.6. Documents
Documents, whether they are historical or contemporary, are a rich source of data for
social research (Punch 1998). They also provide much information that is relevant to
problems and issues under study (Elliott 1991). Documents refer to materials about
syllabus, curriculum, examination papers, samples of children’s written work, etc. in the
context of classroom action research.
However, Punch (1998) states that documentary, quantitative evidence, such as files,
statistics, and records are not always acceptable in social research. According to this
view the statistical information provided in Chapter 3 about schools, teachers, pupils,
etc. is not accepted as data or evidence. For instance, those documents revealed some
information about shortage of teachers, the number of applicants to win a place at
university in Turkey. Likewise, newspapers repeatedly write about the shortage of places
and the difficulty of university of examinations in Turkey [see sections 3.2.4. and 3.2.5.
in Chapter 3]. Hence I can state that although documents and statistical information are
publicly known, they give only a rough idea.

Chapter Seven 190
The documents collected and used for the purpose of this research revealed many things:
for example, some of them explained the current State system of Turkey, the NES, the
structure of the MOE and HEC. Some of them explained the contents of English lessons
in the first and high schools, suggested reading lists for English, copies of examination
papers given by T4 and T6. Besides, some of these documents are the letters I wrote to
the LEA to get permission to enter classrooms. In addition, some of the documents
printed out through the Internet contain recent news about the education system of
Turkey and the HEC. Briefly, every attempt was made to collect some materials -
whether statistical or descriptive- to explain factors, problems, issues related to the
research context. Thus far this chapter has explained how various tools were used to
collect data. The next section explains how the collected data were analysed and
reported.
7.7. Making Sense of the Collected Data
Making sense of qualitative data is a delicate task and requires a meticulous awareness
because of the rich and diverse views about data analysis. Hence it is helpful to know, at
least, the views of prominent researchers on data analysis before making a decision. The
following quotation explicitly reveals the importance of considering various views of
data analysis:
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as
a nail. ( Maslow 1993, p.v)
In order not to see every problem as a nail I carefully reviewed major writings of the
following researchers, among others [Miles & Huberman (1994b), Yin (1989), Stake
(1995), Straus & Gorbin (1990), Patton (1987), Elliott (1991), Punch (1998), Altrichter
et al. (1993), Stenhouse (1980), MacDonald (1977)].
This review brought two things to my attention: a) the analysis of raw data and b)
reporting the data analysis. Reportage of analysis is significant if we take Stenhouse’s
(1980, p.1) views that research is ‘systematic inquiry made public’ This suggests that
publishing research results is as important as the implementation of the research itself.
According to Miles & Huberman (1984, p.23), analysis consists of three stages. The first
one is data reduction that refers to “selecting, focusing, ...transforming the raw data..”.
The next part is data display that refers to “...an organised assembly of information...”.

Chapter Seven 191
The last part is conclusion drawing and verification that refers to “drawing meaning
from displayed, reduced data...”.
Strauss & Corbin (1990) analyse data through the use of a coding procedure that consists
of three stages. The first one is ‘open coding’ which refers to “...breaking down,
examining, comparing... and categorising data” (p. 61). The next stage refers to ‘axial
coding’ that refers to “making connections between categories” (p.96). The last one is
‘selective coding’ that refers to the selection of a core category and assembling sub-
categories around the core category (p. 116). As will be explained below, I sought
answers to my research questions during data analysis. In this sense collecting answers
throughout the transcriptions and putting them in one category can be seen as ‘axial
coding’, but note that my intention was not to analyse the data according to principles of
grounded theory.
Stake (1995) states that the nature of the study and the focus of research questions
determine the data analysis process. In his view data analysis includes coding (p.29)
interpretation of data (p.8) and making assertions (p.12).
Having given a brief overview of qualitative data analysis now let me refer to Chapter 4
and review the sub-title [in section 4.9.] Evaluation of Action Research Studies. In that
section, I answered the questions what is/are evaluated in AR studies? and how is/are
evaluations reported? I will consider these ideas briefly.
According to Hutchinson & Whitehouse (1986, p.90), Oja & Smulyan (1989, p.24) the
aim of AR is to improve educational practice. McNniff et al. (1996, p.118) state that the
aim of AR is to develop educational intentions. Here intentions refer to action
researchers’ research objectives. In addition, Elliott (1991, p.49) states that practice must
be improved and theories should be evaluated through practice. He ( ibid) maintains that
process and product must be evaluated together. Moreover, McNiff et al. (1996, p.21)
mention that action researchers must provide a vivid description of actions and explain
their possible meanings. McLean (1995, p.56) writes that the interpretation of results
should refer to answering research questions. It seemed that practice, action plans,
research questions and researchers’ objectives should all be evaluated in AR studies.

Chapter Seven 192
7.7.1. Among the options; how I analysed the collected data
The above views about data analysis suggest that my research objectives, research
questions and action plans, produced and implemented in classrooms in 1998 and 1999,
should be evaluated. It also meant that the process and product of this AR study should
be evaluated. Hence the raw data were analysed by using a coding system, giving names
to actions, events, etc. in the collected data (Strauss & Corbin 1990).
While the coding process was in progress, many views were entertained about creating
categories and putting the coded data together to make a coherent story. In doing so
research questions and objectives were also seriously considered. Some of these
questions were produced in 1997, but later on they were revised and narrowed on
specific issues as the study went on. For instance, the 2nd
research question was
produced after my field studies in 1997. Likewise, the 5th
research question gained
importance when I experienced problems while implementing the SOAR. Briefly, the
production of research questions was based on the literature of AR and the qualitative
approach - e.g. start small (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988) and include a few participants
(Miles & Huberman 1994b). Finally, the core of the all research questions aimed to
explore the stated objectives rather than testing them out. In this context it will be useful
to quote two of these questions here before explaining the data analysis process:
Q3-) Can we reconcile AR and language teaching theories in order to teach
English more successfully?
- to review the previous AR studies on language teaching to see if any of these
- to explore some common points between AR and language teaching
.....................................................................
Q6-) How do the participant teachers see the necessary conditions for further AR studies
in Turkey?
-to explore the participant teachers’ suggestions.
It means that while coding data and putting the coded data in a coherent story these
research questions must be answered as suggested by McLean (1995). This also means
that action plans must be explained as mentioned by McNiff et al. (1996) This further
means that practice, (action plans) process and product must be evaluated (Elliott 1991
and others. So while making my decision about the coding process and putting the coded

Chapter Seven 193
data together, it was believed that the coding system suggested by Altrichter et al. (1993)
fitted into my research objectives and data analysis process. In their view coding can be
done in two ways. These are;
According to deductive method, categories are chosen from the
researcher’s theoretical knowledge and the data is then searched
for relevant passages: in this case the development of categories is
independent of the data. According to inductive method,
categories are chosen during and after scrutinising the data: in this
case the categories are ‘derived’ from the data... In action
research, it is probably most useful to use a mixture of both
methods,... (Altrichter et al. 1993, p.124)
In the first option categories are pre-determined, whereas the latter is similar to Strauss
& Corbin’s (1990) view of coding. Given the context it seemed that the categories of
data analysis that form a coherent story about the focus of each research question were
identified by the research questions. Hence the use of a deductive approach while coding
the raw data and creating a category for each question was not irrelevant. This also
meant that I should seek answers to my research questions throughout the collected data
(McLean 1995). Even if categories were pre-determined, this is not in conflict with
cross-case analysis that aims to “enhance generalisability and deepen understanding and
explanation” (Miles & Huberman (1994b, p. 173).
Although categories emerged from the research questions, much effort and attention was
spent to bring evidence from many sources, such as interviews, observations, diary
notes, documents, etc. The aims were to build an explanation about each category, to
discover issues within each category and to triangulate each issue, problem, etc. by
bringing evidence from other sources. For example, teachers’ views of AR is a category
relating to the fourth question. Out of five teachers (T2, T4, T6 and T7), only one
teacher (T5) stated that AR should be undertaken “individually”. In this way I tried to
uncover diversity in each category. As a result, although categories may seem to be
chosen deductively, exploring diversities within each category was a inductive process
of coding the data. In sum, while coding the data both inductively and deductively, my
prime aim was to collect answers to the research questions, research objectives and
action plans (McLean 1995, p.56, Yin 1989, p.135).

Chapter Seven 194
A final point about my data analysis procedure seems necessary. This is because looking
for answers to research questions is not an uncommon approach while analysing AR
data. For instance, Block (1997, p.348) tried to answer two research questions in his AR.
Likewise, Farrel (1999, p.158) sought answers to three research questions in an AR
study. On the other hand, I’m also aware that AR data could be analysed in other ways.
For instance, Cumming & Gill (1991, p.185) analysed the data on the basis of grounded
theory in their AR studies. Philport (1993, p.195) and Mok (1997, p.310) analysed the
collected data statistically in their AR studies. [Note that the AR studies mentioned in
this paragraph were already explained in Chapter Five].
7.7.2. How I reported or represented the analysis of data
Some ways of reporting the analysed data in AR studies were explained in Chapter 4
[see pp.91-93]. One way is through the use of a CS approach (Elliott 1980, 1991, Mcniff
et al. 1996 among others). Data analysis can be presented through the use of stories
(Elliott 1980, Winter 1989, 1991), or portrayals, statements and hypotheses (Altrichter et
al. 1993). The reportage of data analysis of this study was based on the production of
case reports. Hence note that the cases in theory and the cases in my study are explained
in sections 7.7.4., 7.7.5., and 7.7.6. of this chapter.
The heading 7.1. [Review of Literature and Rationale] states that CS reports include a
holistic description and an analysis of the case(s) (e.g. Marriam 1988, Denscombe 1998,
Robson 1995, Cohen & Manion 1996). Similarly, Elliott (1981, pp. 154-155) states that
case studies “portray holistic meaning rather than lots of isolated little bits of
information and news”. He (1991, p.87) also states that “case studies are a way of
publicly reporting action research to date” and “case study reports should be based on
analytic memos”. Such a general report on the outcomes of the study is called a case
record (Stenhouse 1978, p.37, Patton 1987, p.147, Elliott 1991, p.88, Mcniff et al. 1996,
p.83 and others). In this view each case record collects all the evidence about one issue
or category and explains deeply one aspect of the case(s) under investigation.
On the other hand, producing a holistic [general] report about each category or issue is
called “explanation building” (Yin 1989, p.113). Similarly, producing a complete
account of each issue under investigation is called “... chain of evidence” (Miles &
Huberman 1994b, p.260). As a result it is possible to infer the following conclusions:

Chapter Seven 195
- The study must be reported in written form.
- This report must include a holistic account [of the case, issue, etc.]
- An individual report can be produced for each category, issue, etc.
- Although the names of the written reports to be produced are
different in the literature, the core of them states that the written
reports must convey/accumulate a general outcome of the study.
As to the report of the analysed data an individual report was produced for each
objective, research question, issue, etc. For instance, one of the reports is about teachers’
experience of language teaching before they joined the study. Another is about teachers’
views of AR, the other is about pupils’ views of AR, etc. [see appendix Q to review the
case reports]. The aim of producing a report about each category (e.g. teachers’ views of
AR) was to write a complete story about each category and present an overview of
issues in that category by collecting evidence from various sources. An important note
about the ‘structure of these reports’ is that they were produced not by using thick
descriptions, but by using broad narratives. The reason for using language in the broad
narrative form comes from linguistic and language theories. Here a brief visit to these
theories seems necessary to explain the rationale behind them.
Radford (1992), explaining the meaning of grammar and language, starts his explanation
by referring to Chomky’s view of grammar. For Chomsky:
A grammar is a model (...) of those linguistic abilities of native
speakers of a language which enable them to speak and
understand their language fluently.
(Chomsky, cited in Radford 1994, p.3)
Radford (ibid.) explains Chomsky’s terms and their meanings as follows: a grammar of
language refers to “model of the linguistic competence of the fluent native speaker of the
language”. Here competence refers to “the fluent native speaker’s knowledge of
language” (p. 3), whereas performance refers to speakers’ actual use of language in real
situations. In his view native speakers’ grammatical competence reflects two types of
intuition, namely, “intuitions about sentence well-formedness and intuitions about
sentence structure”(p.4). This means that native speakers of a language have “gut
feelings” about the proper use of words in a sentence. He (ibid.) further states that native
speakers of a language have the ability to make performance judgements about sentence
acceptability, yet some of these judgements may not be well-formed ... (p.14).

Chapter Seven 196
Harmer (1995) also states that proficient use of language, grammar, syntax, vocabulary,
stress, intonation, etc. take place in the following conditions;
Native speakers or competent users of a language know how to
recognise and produce a range of sounds, know where to place
the stress in words, and phrases..., [they] know the grammar of
the language in the sense that this ...subconscious knowledge of
the rules allows them to produce an infinite number of
sentences...., they have lexical knowledge too-..., [they] have
communicative competence [that refers to] the understanding of
what language is appropriate in certain situations....
(Harmer 1995, p.18)
Explaining diversity of views about ‘language’ is beyond the scope this chapter. Yet it is
necessary for me to revise the above-mentioned views of grammar and language. It is
meant that the native speakers of a language mostly produce semantically, syntactically,
phonetically and pragmatically correct sentences because they have gut feelings about
the appropriate use of words and their native language, but some words or sentences
they produced may be wrong.
When we apply the above noted views about language and grammar to research contexts
and reportage of research results, it appears that research students whose mother tongue
is not English are usually not proper and competent users of the English language. They
may correct the materials they wrote (produced) by getting proof reading done or using
computer facilities such as grammar and spell checker, or thesaurus. The core of the
claim is that researchers who undertake research in a language other than their mother
tongue should not report their results descriptively or by portrayals because producing
these reports requires researchers to describe context, actions, process, etc. ‘vividly and
in great detail’ (Altrichter et al. 1993, p.186).
For instance, if we take English as an example, it has about 500, 000 words and an
average native English speaker uses about 5, 000 words in daily life (McCarthy &
O’Dell 1995, p.2). Those who speak or use English as L2 or FL seem to have limited
ability in the target language if native speakers [English people] use about 5, 000 words
in their daily life. So producing in-depth descriptions in a language other than one’s
mother tongue seems to be either difficult or impossible. For these reasons, I have
produced my case reports in broad [descriptive] narratives. What is meant by ‘broad

Chapter Seven 197
narrative’ will be explained after giving a brief account of the words ‘narrate and
narration’?
To begin with, a dictionary meaning was sought. According to major dictionaries
[Collins Cobuild 1987, Oxford Advanced 1987, Cambridge International 1995] to
narrate means ‘to tell’. These dictionaries also state that the word ‘narration’ refers to a
written or spoken account of events or stories. In the research context researchers use
narration and narrative records as follows:
For example, Shostak (1985, p.8-9), explains “four stages of producing narrative case
records”. He (1991, p.122) maintains that “narratives provide a powerful structure”
which unites “the flux and aggregate life experiences” together. For Connelly &
Clandinin (1987, p.81) “the complex written stories are called narratives”. They (1990,
p.2) also state that “...humans are storytelling organisms...” and the study of narratives
refers to “the study of the ways humans experience the world”.
According to Manning & Cullum-Swam (1998) narrative analysis reflects “the
perspective of the teller, rather than that of the society,...”. Riessman (1993) after
reviewing major definitions of narratives provides the following view.
The core narrative, ..., provides a skeleton plot, a generalizable
structure that investigators could use to compare the plots of
individuals who share a common life event.
(Riessman 1993, p.61)
She also states that the formation of narratives includes “attending, telling, transcribing,
analysing and reading procedures” (p.10). She maintains that open-ended and follow-up
questions in getting someone’s story and setting the boundary of narratives are
important. She offers four steps for validation, namely; “persuasiveness,
correspondence, coherence and pragmatic use” (p. 65-68).
In Richards & Lockhart’s (1994, p.25) views narratives are split into two parts namely;
narrow descriptive narratives and broad descriptive narratives. In the former
researchers take notes on a particular aspect of, for instance, a lesson, whereas in the
latter researchers write a summary of the main things that occur during the lesson. Hence
I took the latter view while producing case reports in broad narrative forms.

Chapter Seven 198
As a result the words narrative and account were used to mean that; ‘narrative’ refers to
participant teachers’, head teachers’, pupils’ and others’ own stories of AR. ‘Account’
refers to a third-person voice because I was not directly involved in teaching English and
implementing action plans in classrooms. Instead my role was to observe teachers, and
their teaching sessions. While putting evidence together and producing case reports, my
task was to play ‘information broker role’ which refers to accepting “value pluralism”
and representing various interests while formulating/producing issues, records, etc.
(MacDonald’ 1977, p.226). That is, all evidence-positive and negative- about each issue,
objective, etc. were included while producing each report. So far I have explained my
three reasons for reporting the data analyses in the broad narrative forms. Now I turn my
attention to the negotiation of analysis and reporting analysis.
7.7.3. Negotiation of Analysis and Reports
Having collected the data, much of the transcription and translation was done in the UK.
After finishing the analysis, all of the transcriptions and data analyses reports were sent
back to the participant teachers for ‘member checking/ validation’ (Smith 1996, p.194).
Member checking was done twice. On the first occasion 12/10/1998 a sample case
report, data analysis reports, transcriptions of classroom observations and interviews that
took place during the SFW and the 1st
cycle of SOAR were sent back to Turkey and
teachers were asked to do three things; [see appendix R].
-to state whether or not they agreed with the transcriptions,
-to produce case reports about mentioned points if possible,
-to produce statements or hypotheses about mentioned points,
Although four of the teachers returned the materials I sent, one teacher (T6) did not
return any material. However, these teachers did not do all of the tasks required of them.
For example, T2 stated her views about English words that are easy and hard to learn;
wrote a paragraph about pupils’ weaknesses; and produced two statements and two
hypotheses about pupils’ success and motivation. In addition, T4 sent me a letter dated
8/11/1998 [see appendix S]. The following extract from this letter illustrates T4’s
situation. Although my letter explained in Turkish every item that needed to be done by
teachers one by one, it seems that T4 did not understand my wishes about the member
validation of data.

Chapter Seven 199
Mr Tomakin 8/11/1998
...now you want a narrative case record, statement or hypotheses from
me. I think this observation is good enough. I don’t wish to add more.
You have great degree of knowledge about lesson records and research. ...
I don’t need a new lesson record about our observations. This observation
is good enough. How can we teach all of the vocabulary to the students
about any topic. For example, about football; we can draw a football field
on the board...
In addition, T5 sent a letter dated 9/11/1998 including three pages of her seminar
experience, but did not say anything about my data analysis. T7 wrote about his
vocabulary teaching experience, but did not say anything about my interim data analysis
either.
This being the situation, the first thing I did on my return to Turkey in March 1999 was
to carry out member checking of the data analysis before proceeding with the 2nd
cycle.
So I interviewed T2 on 18/3/1999, T4 on 26/3/1999, T5 on 19/3/1999, T6 on 19/3/1999
and T7 on 22/3/1999. The following is an excerpt from the member-checking process.
ET: in line with these transcripts, how do you view the analysis and
interpretation?
T5: in general I agree with you
ET: if you were me would you do the same thing?
T5: of course, I would do the same coding and I would write the same
thing,
ET: do you have any alternative ideas or interpretation?
T5: No,
ET: finally, you can delete some parts if you like, you can say this part
is private,
T5: no,
ET: next question, ……if you give permission, I will give these
transcripts to other friends to read……in this context, do you give
permission to others to read, or ...,
T5: of course, they can read them,
ET: there is no special information here,
T5: no,
ET: well,
T5: I hope we agree,
ET: okay, thank you
(int. 19/3/1999).
In these interviews, questions were focused on teachers’ agreement about data analysis
and their permission for those who may read the data and data analysis other than me.

Chapter Seven 200
After finishing the 2nd
cycle of SOAR, all transcriptions and data analysis were sent to
the teachers in Turkey on 16/9/1999 to do another member check. A tally sheet was
prepared to support the data analysis and included two options for each category. The
format of this tally sheet can be illustrated as follows [see appendix T] for the format.
3) All of the participant teachers stated that this AR study became useful.
a) I agree with you b) In my opinion.....
Briefly, T2, T4 and T5 returned the materials I sent, but T6 and T7 did not. The
following diary notes reveal why member checking by T6 and T7 did not take place:
When I talked to my younger brother on the telephone,... he said
that one of the teachers (T6) retired last September 1999 and
teaches at a private nursery. He says that he left the transcriptions
there and has not collected them. The other teacher (T7) has been
appointed to teach another city, Erzincan, from where T7 comes.
He also said that he has posted the transcriptions to Erzincan, but
he has not received them back yet.(diary, 5/11/1999, p.145)
I made frequent contact with my younger brother about T6 and T7. The following diary
note also reveals my continuous efforts to have teachers’ consent with the data analysis:
I made a phone call to Turkey and talked to my younger brother. I
asked for the transcriptions again. He told me that these two
teachers have not returned anything to him yet. He was also told
that T6 has gone to Paris for a holiday...
(diary 21/12/1999, p.146)
As a result T6 and T7 did not return their transcriptions and the interim data analysis of
the 2nd
cycle of SOAR. So I finished the data analysis of the second cycle of AR on the
previously given permission. Teachers gave this permission in 1997 when we were
identifying the ethical rules of this study. Since my data analysis is based on case
reports, it is time to explain the cases in theory and the cases in my study.
7.7.4. The Cases in Theory
The definitions of cases and diversity of views in the literature seem confusing. The
reason might be to do with the nature of cases or the difference between case study and
other studies. The main dispute centres around whether cases are ready made, or created.
The boundary of cases, the reliability and validity of case studies are a matter of dispute

Chapter Seven 201
as well. In addition, it is clear that understanding of what is a case? varies among
researchers.
For Stake (1995, p.2) “a case is an object rather than a process”, yet for Harrington
(1994) some cases are based on collections of events and some others are created by the
imagination of case writers. Here the former view implies that cases are ready-made,
whereas the latter implies that cases are created by researchers. These two views will be
considered in the following part.
For MacDonald & Walker (1975, p.2) “case study is the examination of an instance in
action”. In this context Kemmis (1980) states that the participants of the Cambridge
conference rejected a methodological definition of CS in 1975. Instead they gave
emphasis to substance and produced two definitions for the notion of the “case”. The
first definition produced at the conference suggests that a case is an instance.
Stenhouse’s(1978) views show diversity according to other researchers. Stenhouse, in
his earliest view, states that:
A case is an instance,..., like a sample, a representative, of a class
and that case study is the basis for generalisation and hence
cumulation of data is embedded in time.
(Stenhouse 1978, p. 21)
Rudduck (1995) reveals Stenhouse’s efforts to establish an archive by producing case
records as follows; case records firstly produced during the HCP are created by
“progressive reduction and indexing”. Here the intention was to solve the reportage
problem of the multi-site case studies. His general intention was to collect evidence
about an issue, case(s), etc. and make public access to those case records. In his earlier
view Stenhouse (1985) posed four types of CSs namely; educational, ethnographic,
evaluative and AR case study, yet Rudduck (1985) states there are two types of CS in
Stenhouse’s view, namely, historical and ethnographic. The former uses interview
technique, whereas the latter uses participant observation.
Nisbet & Watt (1984) and Abbott (1992) also define a case as an instance. Nisbet &
Watt (1984) provide new examples of cases apart from the usual examples such as pupil,
teachers, school, etc. For them “a new method of teaching or a new method of
organisation” is considered as a case (p.73) although Stake (1995, p.2) does not accept

Chapter Seven 202
‘teaching’ as a case. For Abbot (1992) instances (cases) can be of two types. A particular
entity may be an instance of a population or a conceptual class.
Other views are that a case is a “unit of analysis” (Yin 1989, p.31, 1993, p.10) and a
phenomenon (Miles & Huberman 1994b). Although Ragin (1992, p.1) states that the
terms “cases and unit of analysis” are jointly used in quantitative research, Schwandt
(1997, p.12) states that these terms are jointly used in social research as well. He (ibid.)
maintains that there is a dispute as to whether “the case is an empirical unit ... or a
theoretical construct...”. For Miles & Huberman (1994b, p.25) “a case is a phenomenon
... occurring in a bounded context” and researchers’ unit of analysis. In this context, the
second definition accepted at the Cambridge conference also defines a case as “the study
of a bounded system” (Kemmis 1980, p.107).
In addition, cases are created or emerge as a result of a case writers’ imagination
(Harrington 1994, Saint-Germain 1995, Powell & Gray 1981, Lewin 1995, Walton 1992,
Ragin 1992 and others). For example, in Saint-Germain’s (1995, p.172) view “a case is a
... narrative description of events occurring in reality... and is a ... created object...”. Both
Powell & Gray (1981, p.198) and Lewin (1995, p.63) define cases in terms of teaching
and learning processes. They maintain that a case or case study is a process during which
students study selected data to develop their understanding of processes. Besides,
Walton (1992, p.121) states that “cases are “made” by invoking theories...”. In addition,
Ragin (1992, p.217) states that social scientists’ efforts to delimit or declare cases are
called “casing” and casing is fluid. He also states that “usually a problematic relation
between theory and data is involved when a case is declared” (p. 218). We can conclude
that for some researchers cases are a creation.
Other researchers state that cases are both created and ready-made. For example, Ragin
(1992) states that “cases are objects, made, conventions and found” (p.9). In Stake’s
view (1995, p.4-8) cases are pre-selected in intrinsic case study. Cases are also selected
to represent the population of cases. For Marriam (1988, p.47) researchers either identify
the case (the bounded system)... the unit of analysis, or choose an issue. In Yin’s (1989)
view cases are selected after a pilot study. He (ibid.) maintains that researchers may
choose a complete case (bounded system), or create a case by collecting evidence and
putting it together. According to Adelman, Jenkins & Kemmis (1984), researchers either

Chapter Seven 203
take a bounded system (the case) and explore issues within that pre-selected case or they
start with an issue or problem and bound the case during the research process.
Still others provide examples of cases rather than posing a definition of case. These are
Robson (1995), Saturman (1997), Marriam (1988), Punch (1998) and others. They state
that cases can be a school, pupil, teacher, group, organisation, phenomenon, etc.
Finally, Stake (1995, p.1) poses a general statement to define cases in terms of
education. In his view “peoples and programs are cases in education”. In this view a
person, student, teacher, classroom, committee, family, home etc. can be the case. He
(ibid.) also states that a case is “unique” (p.1), bounded, specific and an integrated
system” (p.2). He maintains that “sometimes... the case is given” (p.3). He further states
that if something is part of a unique system, that (part of a unique system) is not
accepted as a case.
He (ibid.) classifies case study according to researchers’ objectives and eventually three
types of CS appear in his understanding. If a study aims to understand a specific case, it
is called an “intrinsic case study” (p.3). If a study aims to have insight into questions and
issues by studying a particular case, the study is an “instrumental case study” (p.3). If a
study aims to discover issues or problems by including more than one case, it is called a
“collective case study” (p.4). It seems that the terms collective case study and multi-site
case study are interchangeably used in the literature. Briefly, the core of the argument
reflects two types of view, namely; cases are created and cases are ready-made.
7.7.5. Defining the Boundary of a Case
We saw that cases were either pre-selected (bounded) or created. In the former they
(Adelman et al. 1984) stated that the researcher’s task was to explore issues within the
case, in the latter cases were made by gradually focusing (Harrington 1994, Walton 1992
and others), yet these two types of views are not without criticism. First of all it is
necessary to look at what is meant by bounding the case.
There is agreement that a case is a bounded system [Adelman et al. (1984), Marriam
(1988), Ragin (1992), Miles & Huberman (1994b), Stake (1995), Creswell (1998)].
These researchers also give examples of bounded systems such as a school, classroom,
programme, etc. For those who give such examples the boundary is pre-selected. This
means that the task of the case researcher is to explore issues within that bounded

Chapter Seven 204
system. However, there is a counter claim about the identification of the boundary of a
case such as school or person. For example, the rival claim has been raised as follows:
A hospital ward, a school classroom, ..., a warehouse and the like
all suggest that case studies conducted within their confines
would have easily identified boundaries based on space, area,
geography and location. But such simplicity is something of an
illusion. The fact is that a case study, for the purpose of social
research, will not actually be based on an office block or a school
classroom. The case study will actually be on the activities,
processes and relationships that go on within those physical areas.
And this is where the trouble begins.
(Denscombe 1998, p.38)
This reference states that the location of a school or a geographical area may not be the
actual boundary of that case. The boundary of the case must be identified on the basis of
activities, relationships, etc. in that school or classroom. This also implies that if
activities or relationships in that school have a connection with, are affected by, or
depend on other things beyond the physical boundary of that school, we cannot bound
the case with the school building.
This reference has had an important effect on the understanding of the cases of this
thesis. More than this, as the literature of qualitative research embodies a variety of
views about identifying the boundary of the case, I have not made strong claims while
defining the boundary of cases in my study. That is, what I have done has been to define
potential cases and leave some space for readers to comment about them.
When a social event, activity or historical action is studied, the boundary of the case is
defined socially or historically (Denscombe 1998, p.38). Here the problem that emerges
is that the boundary of a social event for one researcher may not be taken as the
boundary of that event for another researcher or for the participants. At this time the
boundary of the case, as mentioned by Ragin (1992, p.225), is in flux and casing is in
dispute. Besides, cases can be defined “temporarily and spatially” in Miles &
Huberman’s (1994b, p.26) view. In addition, cases may have sub-cases as well (Yin
1989, p.58, Miles & Huberman 1994, p.26 and Ragin 1992, p.221-225).
The question of what is this a case of ..., seems best answered by Punch (1998, p.150),
who states that “anything can serve as a case”. In my opinion, every object or concept
can be taken as a case on the condition that the object or concept (the case) must have at

Chapter Seven 205
least two boundaries. This can be explained as follows; if a school is taken as a case, the
first boundary is the duration of the period we study that school. That is, all researchers
study a case or cases for a certain period of time such as one week, one month or three
years. Hence in my opinion the concept of ‘time’ is a common boundary for all cases or
case studies. Another boundary of the case can be taken the physical extent of that
school because it is possible to find many examples in the BEI. For instance, ‘A case
study of three schools, A case study of four teachers, etc. The other boundary of that
school, for some researchers such as Ragin (1992), Adelman et al. (1984), is the issues
to be explored. In sum, case(s) or CS may have more than one boundary.
7.7.6. The Cases in This Study
Identification of cases and the rationale behind the cases in this study can be stated as
follows: the study started with a period of fieldwork. During the first of these the
potential research areas were investigated, participant teachers and schools were chosen.
Although seven teachers and four schools were chosen during the FFW, five teachers
and three schools were included after the SFW. It could be argued that the cases in this
study are schools or the cases are teachers and schools because each teacher or each
school itself is a bounded system. Hence it is possible to consider each school or teacher
as an independent case (Adelman et al. 1984 and others). Since three schools and seven
teachers were chosen and studied, the study is best seen as a multi-site CS.
It can be claimed that although three schools were chosen, only one -sometimes two-
classrooms were observed from each school. These classrooms were Prep A, Prep B, 6-
F, 6-D, etc. Since each classroom itself can be taken as a bounded system, the notion of
multi-site case study again emerges.
It could be claimed that choosing teachers or schools is part of the study. It is a sampling
strategy. It can also be claimed that my SOAR actually started when we had a meeting
on 17/4/1998 to choose a topic and it was decided to study vocabulary teaching. [Note
that identifying the starting point of the study is the first step in my SOAR study]. Hence
a further claim is that the study started with the choice of topic. Then following certain
issues relevant to the topic, collecting evidence and putting them together must create
case(s). Hence the factors/elements that affect the issues about the focus of the study –
vocabulary teaching- identify the boundary of the case.

Chapter Seven 206
In addition, the participant teachers and I tried to use an AR approach in three types of
schools in Turkey namely; a primary school, a vocational and technical high school and
a language-based high school. With the use of AR we tried to teach the selected topic in
a different way. Since an innovation (Marriam 1988, Robson 1995 among others) and a
new method of teaching (Nisbet & Watt 1984) are accepted as a case, our use of AR in
Turkey while teaching English and the selected topic could also be considered as a case.
If each school is taken as a case, then a new method of teaching in that school can also
be taken as the case within a case.
Moreover, schools and teachers are not the cases as far as Denscombe’s (1998) view is
concerned. In this view if the boundary of issues goes beyond the physical border of
that pre-selected bounded system (school, pupils, etc.) [see issues in Chapter 9.7.], then
that pre-selected bounded system cannot be taken as a case. The boundary of issues must
be taken as a case. As to this study the data analysis [see Chapter 8] indicates that there
are certain obstacles to the implementation of AR that cannot be solved. They are mostly
related to the governmental policies in Turkey. Hence it is possible to claim that the
boundary of those obstacles in Turkey can be taken as the case.
Finally, it is stated by Stake (1995, p.84) that “full coverage is impossible, ...the case and
the key issues need to be kept in focus”. This means that we ask either several research
questions or we investigate several issues in our study. We focus on our interest and
ignore the other part of study. In this context some issues and aspects of cases may have
remained unexplored.
So, there are a number of potential cases and perceptions of the identification of cases
and the boundaries of the cases could be said to be in dispute. However, I tend to
identify the case in this study as the school and teacher. In other words, a case study of
three schools, or a case study of seven teachers. As seen in the title, [see 7.7.4.], there is
more agreement on pre-selected boundaries. Now views about validity and reliability
and generalisation will be explained briefly.
[Note that the following headings of this chapter explain the views about validity,
reliability and generalisation in terms of the CS approach. This is because the views
about the validity, reliability and generalisation of AR studies were reviewed in Chapter
4, (see section 4.10.)

Chapter Seven 207
7.8. Reliability
An account is considered to be reliable if it is capable of being replicated by other
researchers (Schwandt 1997). Sarantakos (1998) states that reliability refers to
‘consistency’ and a method is taken as reliable if it produces the same results when it is
repeated by other researchers. He (ibid.) further states that internal reliability refers to
“consistency of results within the site”, whereas external reliability refers to
“consistency and replicability of data across the sites” (83). When this is transferred into
CS, Marriam (1988, p.173) asks the following question: “if the study is repeated, will it
yield the same results?”.
MacDonald & Walker (1977) warn that educational CSs are usually undertaken under
constraints of resources and time. Reliability and validity pose considerable problems. In
Walker’s (1989, p.178) views “educational situations are rarely replaceable” and if
researchers want to increase reliability, they can do this through the explanation or
portrayal of reality.
What Walker (1989) says about the replicability of educational situations seems to be
acceptable because those involved in the actors of educational activities are usually
human beings and people’s views, behaviours, etc. change over time and according to
circumstance. For instance, they can be sensible, optimistic, extroverted, introverted,
relaxed, determined, stubborn, or broad-minded. Any phenomenon may influence
individuals’ thinking about objects and conceptual phenomena. For example, if person X
likes hunting now, we cannot claim that that person will like hunting forever.
The participant teachers of this AR study interviewed in Turkey stated that they liked the
notion of AR and the action plans we applied during English lessons. If other researchers
undertook AR involving the same participants and using the same methods, the
following possible results may appear: one possibility is that those teachers may still like
AR and the researchers get the same results as I have achieved. Another possibility is
that some of the participant teachers may have changed their views of AR and the
researchers may not find the same results. Yet this does not mean that the findings of the
former researcher (me) or the latter researchers are wrong. This difference could be due
to peoples’ changing attitudes, etc.

Chapter Seven 208
That is why I tend to take MacDonald & Walker (1975) and Stenhouse’s (1978)
definition of a case and case study. They state that ‘the case is an instance and CS is the
examination of that instance in action’. This means that this study reflects teachers’,
pupils’, head teachers’ views of AR, action plans, suggestions for further study, etc. as a
slice [bit] of three years. The word ‘slice’ here refers to the particular dates and times
during which observations and interviews were undertaken and documents were
collected in the past.
Although Janesick (1994, p.218) reveals some strategies to generalise qualitative studies
such as “data, investigator, theory generalisations” among others, the core of my claim is
that if reliability refers to the replication of educational situations, I tend to believe that
we cannot replicate the same situations in education. Replication of the same practice in
education [ or in other fields too] is usually difficult or impossible (MacDonald &
Walker 1977).
7.9. Validity
The views about validity, as happened in reliability of the study, are diverse because the
views in the literature are rich. This part reviews important ones among others.
According to Nunan (1994):
Validity,..., has to do with the extent to which a piece of research
actually investigates what the researcher purports to investigate.
(Nunan 1994, p.14)
This means that validity is primarily concerned with the objectives of the study and
researchers must focus on these objectives.
Validity is often split into sub-units such as content, construct, internal, external validity,
criterion-related validity, etc. (Zeller 1997). Among these, two are often mentioned in
research studies. Internal validity refers to consideration of variables or events on
research outcomes, whereas external validity refers to generalisation from samples to
population (Yin 1989 and Nunan 1994). Although the tactics in qualitative research for
increasing validity are triangulation, checking for representativeness, replicating a
finding, checking out rival explanations among others, Sarantakos (1998, p.84) states
that qualitative researchers try to achieve ‘credibility’ instead of validity and speak of
‘audibility’ rather than reliability. If the external validity of a study refers to

Chapter Seven 209
generalisation of findings, then a separate discussion of the concept of generalisation in
case studies will be helpful.
7.10. Generalisation of Case Studies
The views about the generalisation in case study are diverse and major ones can be
stated as follows. For example, Stenhouse (1978) states that a case is an instance of a
class and constitutes the basis for generalisation. He also (1979, p.10) states that “the
accumulation of cases may yield some generalisation”. He tried to do this by producing
case records which consist of evidence brought from different sources.
Stake (1978, p.7) states that making generalisations not to populations of cases, but to
similar cases is a necessity, but we need to observe “typicality and representativeness” of
the sample. Denscombe (1998) shares Stake’s view (1978) and states that generalisation
from the CS to other examples depends on ‘similarity’ of an example of CS to those of
other cases. Stake (1985) states that differences of settings, ..., does not always make
generalisations irrelevant and maintains that setting and generalisation also depend on
readers’ intentions when they read case studies. He (1995, p.7) further states that case
studies seem to be “a poor basis for generalisation” in general, and single cases have no
strong basis for generalisation.
Ebbutt’s (1988) view of generalisation is based on single or multi-site case studies. For
him generalisations in CS research are not ‘predictive’, but ‘retrospective’. He (ibid.)
maintains that researchers can make some strong claims by doing “retrospective
generalisations in multi-site case study” (p.361) in which evidence is drawn from
broader bases.
In Elliott’s view (1990), explaining the external validity of case studies, case studies can
not be generalised to other instances. He also states that:
A case study which describes a situation as an instance of a class
concept possessing fixed observable properties, can be
generalised to other instances which fall within the same class.
(Elliott 1990, p.59)
Punch (1988) seems to share similar views to those mentioned by Elliott (1990) and
states that generalisation is impossible for all types of case studies such as extreme or
unique cases. He (ibid.) also states that the researcher can generalise results by

Chapter Seven 210
producing a few new concepts to explain the case or by posing one or more propositions
which link concepts or factors within the case. It is maintained that generalisation is
related to what is unique or common among cases. He concludes that the more common
features cases have, the more generalisation is possible.
It seems to me that we can infer some views about the generalisation of results in case
studies by looking at their objectives too. For instance, Stake (1995) states that the task
is to ‘understand’ the case under study and maintains that understanding the case itself
seems to be of importance rather than producing general results.
The aims of case study have also been claimed, “to give a portrayal of a specific
situation” (Nisbet & Watt 1984, p.74), “to understand a case”... (Saturman 1997, p.61),
“to illuminate the general by looking at the particular” (Denscombe 1998, p.30), and “to
develop a full understanding of that case” (Punch 1998, p.150). In addition, it is stated
that CS aims to investigate the case deeply and intensively (Punch 1998, p.150, Cohen &
Manion 1996, p.106, Simon 1996). For Stenhouse (1985) the aim of the case study in
education “is to improve educational practice” (p. 649).
While some have stated that the aim of CS was to understand a single case (Stake 1995,
Saturman 1997, etc.), others have argued that the aim of CS is to find a result which can
be generalised to other similar and representative cases (Stenhouse 1979, Stenhouse
1980, etc.). For instance Stenhouse (1979, p.10) first states that “the accumulation of
cases can yield some generalisation...”. He (1989, p.5) tried to achieve generalisation by
producing case records. He (ibid.) goes on to say that “if someone wants to contribute to
comparative education, they must produce documents in several countries”. Among
these views naturalistic generalisation is common and Kemmis (1980) explains this
point as follows:
The aspiration of CS reports, then, is to create authentic
knowledge for the reader. It is authentic in the sense that it
grounded in the circumstances of the readers’ life and validated
by his own experience. (Kemmis 1980, p. 128)
Readers make implicit connections, interpretations, etc. with their experience while
reading case studies. This implicit generalisation is usually more possible if the ‘case
story’ is typical with readers’ experience.

Chapter Seven 211
7.11. Conclusion
In this chapter I explained how the study was designed and conducted. AR, using the CS
approach, can be seen as qualitative research. The selection of participants was based on
purposive sampling, but it came to my attention that the published materials about the
research methodology should state the importance of the social and cultural factors of
the research context while choosing the participants of the study. This is because
potential participants may want to join in a research project, but some of them may not
have social relations among themselves, as happened in this study. In this case the
researcher’s plans to undertake a collaborative study do not occur. It was stressed that
the language used by researchers - no matter whether they are native speaker or non-
native speaker- while writing and reporting the research results was limited. For that
reason data analysis [case] reports were produced as broad descriptive narratives that
referred to summaries of actions, views, events, etc.
So far chapters 6 and 7 explained the implementational principles and procedures of the
study. The next part [Part Four] is about the empirical side of the study. To that end
Chapter 8 provides a detailed analysis of the data collected. Chapter 9 reviews issues and
implications and poses some suggestions for further AR studies.

212
PART FOUR
CHAPTER EIGHT
CHAPTER NINE

Chapter Eight 213
CHAPTER EIGHT
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ARISING FROM THE
CLASSROOM STUDY
Qualitative research is uncomfortable with methodolatry [a
combination of method and idolatry p.215] and prefers to
capture the lived experience of participants in order to
understand the meaning of perspectives. Finally, the qualitative
researcher is like the choreographer, who creates a dance to
make a statement. (Janesick, V. J. (1994, p.218)
Introduction
This chapter aims to provide a broad descriptive analysis of the 4th
, 5th
, and 6th
research
questions17
. These are:
Q 4-) How do those involved in this study view the influence of ‘AR and action plans’on
English language teaching and the selected topic?
6) to find out the local educational authority’s view of AR,
studies in Turkey?
Also note that the potential cases [each teacher or school, language teaching, etc.] of the
study were identified in Chapter 7 [see section 7.7.6.]. After implementing the 1st
cycle
of the SOAR study, the data analysis indicated that the issues raised by each case were
similar or same [e.g. double session teaching], as we will read in the rest of this chapter.
17
The first three research questions were already investigated in Chapter 3, 4, and 5.

Chapter Eight 214
Hence it was assumed that presenting the evidence, issues or findings case by case [e.g.
the case of school A, the case of school B, etc.] would be repetition of the same issues in
different places. So the same or similar evidence, issues, etc. were presented under one
title to save space. Note that presenting the same evidence, or issues under one title is in
agreement with deductive coding of the research questions, as explained in Chapter 7
[see 7.7.1.]. Since researchers seek answers to pre-identified research questions
[objectives] in this approach, each research question explores an overall account of
issues about the focus of that question. In addition, exploring an overall account of the
issues about the focus of the research question is also in agreement with the CS approach
that refers to a ‘holistic’ account of the case(s) issues, etc. So the order of the data
analysis is:
I shall first introduce the language teaching conditions, classroom and school contexts of
the research site prior to the initiation of the study in 1997. Then I shall go on to provide
some extracts which exemplify language teaching situations as they existed during the
implementation of the AR study. I shall then explore issues under the following
headings, related to the fourth, fifth and sixth research questions.
- Participant teachers’ views of action research.
- Participant teachers’ views of action plans.
- Pupils’ experience of action plans.
- Teachers’ overall views of AR on English language teaching.
- Head teachers’ views of action research.
- The LEA’s views of action research.
- Conceptualisation of obstacles to the study in Turkey.
- Participant teachers’ suggestions for further AR studies.
8.1. Description of the Situation before the AR Study
This part mainly aims to introduce ‘what was taking place in language classrooms’
before the initiation of an actual AR study. Researchers such as Ebbutt (1985), Elliott
(1991), Kemmis & McTaggart (1988), Hopkins (1996), Mcniff et al.(1996) and others
state the necessity of describing the situation in which an AR study will be undertaken.
The exploration of the language teaching situations which existed before the initiation of
the study, as explained in Chapter 6, was carried out in two ways during field studies: a)
through classroom observations; b) by collecting written documents about the participant
teachers’ language teaching experiences. The collected data, as stated in Chapter 7, was
analysed using a coding system, and an individual report was produced on the classroom

Chapter Eight 215
observations and the teachers’ language teaching experiences respectively [see sections
8.1.1. to 8.1.6.].
The report on the classroom observations was called ‘case report 5’. This report first
introduces the analysis of the language teaching situations, school and classroom
contexts. The following information about each school and classroom context helps us to
understand the cases and issues surrounding them.
8.1.1. General Introduction to School Contexts18
Schools are surrounded by stone walls or barbed wire. There is only one main entrance
door to the school gardens, at which point there is a little cottage near the entrance door.
One or two pupils from the final year classes serve as stewards and they use this cottage
in cold weather. They write visitors’ names in a register [notebook], and keep identity
cards until visitors leave schools. Other pupils serve as stewards at the main entrance
doors of schools. That is, each pupil of the final year serves as a steward one day and
this task recurs throughout the year among final year pupils.
One head teacher and several deputy head teachers are primarily responsible for running
schools, staff management and education and training activities. Each head has his/her
own room, full of decoration, curtains, armchairs, nest of tables, colour TV video,
several telephones etc. Deputy heads either share a room or each deputy head has his/her
own room. They are responsible for keeping records for absentee teachers, pupils and
other staff. Each deputy head serves as a steward for one day a week. They arrive at
school early, check the cleaning of schools, absentee teacher(s) owing to illness, etc.
Deputy head teachers teach less, about 10 hours in a week, but do more tasks regarding
school management, recording pupils’ marks, reports and files etc. Teachers usually
teach 20 to 30 hours per week. Each teacher serves as a steward in the garden, canteen
and corridors of schools in their free time. Their main task is to keep an eye on pupils in
case there is any quarrel, disorder etc. Each school has one or two staff rooms, used
during breaks and in free times. A small locker for each teacher, many chairs, armchairs,
one or two tables, colour TV, coat hangers etc. are the furniture in teachers’ rooms.
8.1.1.1. Specific Information about Schools
18
This description relates to the three schools in which the SOAR was undertaken.

Chapter Eight 216
The language-based high school (OAL) was opened in 1985 and there were only three
classrooms at that time. Students from this school first graduated in 1992. During my
AR study there were about 715 students and 41 teachers. One head teacher and three
deputy head teachers run the school. There are ten English language teachers at this
school and each teacher teaches about 17 to 20 hours in a week. That is, the number of
English teachers is sufficient to allow for a favourable work-load. There are several
language labs in this school and materials [TV, video, tape-recorder, posters, etc.] in
each prep classroom. This school is on single session teaching and those who want to go
to this school have to sit for a publicly held examination (int. 12/5/1999).
The vocational and technical high school (OATML) was opened in 1963. During my AR
study there were about 1, 400 students and 53 teachers. 1 head teacher and several
deputy head teachers run the school. There are 4 English language teachers. This school
in on double session teaching (int.13/5/1999).
The primary school (OHSTIO) was established in 1965, but started teaching in 1965-
1966 academic years with five teaching staff at that time. During the AR study there
were about 52 teachers and 1, 230 students. Every year about 500 pupils finish this
school. There are three English language teachers, but they need one more English
teacher. This school is on double session teaching (int. 13/5/1999).
8.1.1.2. General Introduction to Classroom Contexts
The typical arrangement is for students to sit in pairs on a bench, facing a chalkboard.
On the top of the chalkboard several things are hung; these are the Turkish flag,
Ataturk’s picture, the Turkish national anthem and Ataturk’s speech to Turkish Youth. It
is possible to see them in all classrooms. There is only one entrance door to the
classrooms, opening outwards. There is a table and chair for the teacher and desks and
benches for pupils in classrooms. There are also a few large windows, from the bottom
to the middle the windows are painted to prevent children from seeing outside. The
floors of classrooms are not covered with carpets or other floor coverings. They are
concrete. All schools, I observed, have central heating. There are videos, televisions,
tape recorders in language-based classrooms, in which the walls are full of colour
posters, pictures and cartoons, whereas none of the normal state schools had colour
poster, pictures, cartoons etc. on the walls.

Chapter Eight 217
All pupils stand up when teachers enter the classrooms. Students are not free to talk to
each other or walk from one place to another during lessons. Therefore, they usually
follow the tasks given by the teachers such as ‘answering questions, solving exercises,
repeating the phrase, sentences, etc.’
8.1.2. A ‘Foreword’ about the Language Teaching Situations before the AR Study
As noted in Chapter 6 it was not possible for me to have a meeting with the participant
teachers at the outset of my Ph.D. study, to choose a topic/interest to study.
Consequently, the focus of my observations during field studies in 1997 was a general
interest to learn how these teachers teach in classrooms, what they do and what methods
and techniques they use. My aim, therefore, was to obtain a picture of language teaching
situations in classrooms.
Hence it is not possible to provide specific information about the focus of the SOAR -
vocabulary teaching. I admit that it would have been better if the first meeting had been
held at the outset of my study in 1997 before undertaking field studies. Then my
observations would have aimed to explore the traditional way of teaching the selected
topic. This point can be taken as a shortcoming of the study. However, the exploration of
the overall situation concerning language teaching can also be taken as useful when
considering the possibility of undertaking further AR studies.
8.1.3. Identification of Common Patterns of Classroom Observations
The data collected during classroom observations [SFW] was analysed using a coding
system to identify patterns that refer to “regularities of behaviour or forms of interactions
which occur over and over again” (Ireland & Russel 1978, p.21), see also Altrichter et al.
(1993, p.134). For example, if an activity, event, occurrence happened twice, three times
or more, it was taken as one type of pattern and a name was given to it. The following
part explains these patterns briefly.
a) Greeting. n) Repetition.
b) Checking Attendance Sheet. o) Calling pupils' names.
c) Question and Answer. p) The use of mother tongue.
d) Explanation. q) Examinations.
e) Action. r) Pupil-based practices.
f) Drawing/Demo. s) Silence.
g) Audio-based practice. t) Confusion-inaudible.
h) Task-based practice. u) Preaching-giving advice.
i) Self-study. v) Non-lesson based activity.

Chapter Eight 218
j) Feedback. w) Non-reflective activity.
k) Active/non-active teaching, x) No-research.
l) Songs-games. y) Unexpected event.
m) Chalk board-based practice.
A Brief Explanation of the Language Teaching Patterns
a) Greeting: As soon as teachers enter classrooms, they greet students by saying “good
morning, good afternoon children” and pupils respond by saying “good morning, good
afternoon teacher” and teachers continue “how are you today” and pupils reply “fine
thanks, and you” and teachers finally say “sit down”. For example, T1 11/11/1997, T2
11/11/1997, T3 11/11/1997, T4 19/11/1997, etc.
b) Checking attendance sheet: teachers check attendance sheet to see if there are any
absentees and sign it as required by educational acts. Examples of this pattern are; T1
11/11/1997, T2 11/11/1997, T3 11/11/1997, T5 12/11/1997, T7 17/11/1997, etc.
c) Question and Answer: Teachers use ‘question and answer’ techniques for many
purposes. The cases in which teachers use this technique come as follows: First, some
teachers ask motivation questions at the beginning of lessons and they continue teaching
that day’s topic. For example, T5 12/11/1997, T2 18/11/1997, T5 19/11/1997, T3
25/11/1997, T2 2/12/1997, etc. Second, in some cases teachers ask one question to one
student and get a correct answer. For instance, T1 11/11/1997, T2 11/11/1997, T3
11/11/1997 etc. Third, teachers refuse wrong answers and ask another pupil. For
instance, T7 17/11/1997, T5 19/11/1997, T7 24/11/1997, T6 26/11/1997, T3 25/11/1997,
T7 1/12/1997, etc. Fourth, teachers ask one question to one student and correct his/her
answer. For instance, T1 11/11/1997, T2 11/11/1997, T6 17/11/1997, T2 18/11/1997,
etc. Fifth, teachers ask a question to the whole classroom and accept correct answers. For
instance, T3, 2/11/1997, T2 18/11/1997, T7 1/12/1997, T2 2/12/1997, etc.
d) Explanation: Teachers use this technique for several purposes. First; they sometimes
explain the grammatical rules, the meaning of new words, idioms, or reading part of
course books in Turkish. For instance, T1 11/11/1997, T2 11/11/1997, T3 11/11/1997,
T5 12/11/1997, T1 18/11/1997, etc. In this sense the explanation in Turkish can also be
taken as a separate pattern, for instance, translation. Second, explanation is used to
clarify new grammatical rules, vocabularies, idioms, phrasal verbs etc. in English. For
instance, T1 11/11/1997, T7 17/11/1997, T2 18/11/1997, T3 25/11/1997, etc.

Chapter Eight 219
e) Action: Teachers sometimes teach topic, unit, structure etc. by actually doing it, by
acting. For example, T3 11/11/1997, T5 12/11/1997, etc.
f) Drawing/demonstration: Teachers sometimes use the chalkboard to draw something
while teaching. In some cases they use [demonstrate] real objects while teaching. For
example, T6 8/11/1997, T3 9/11/1997, T4 10/11/1997, etc.
g) Audio-based practice: Some teachers use a tape recorder in the classrooms and play
cassettes related to that day’s topic. The aim of this practice is to improve the listening
ability of pupils’. So they answer some exercises from the textbooks on the basis of
listening activities. For instance, T6 17/11/1997 T6, 24/11/1997, T6 1/12/1997, T6
8/12/1997, etc.
h) Task-based exercise: Pupils do these sorts of activities to implement tasks given by
teachers inside the classrooms. That is, these tasks are short activities and they may take
5, 10 or 15 minutes. That is to say, teachers give direction to pupils to get something
done. For instance, T2 11/11/1997, T2 18/11/1997, T5 19/11/1997, T7 24/11/1997, T3
25/11/1997, etc.
i) Self-study: Self study refers to activities done by pupils themselves at their desks. In
the previous article (task-based practice) we saw that teachers gave various tasks for
pupils to be done instantly, inside classrooms. While pupils do these activities they work
on them by themselves. During this time pupils are silent and teachers walk up and down
in the classrooms. For example, T1 11/11/1997, T2 11/11/1997, T6 17/11/1997, T2
18/11/1997, etc.
j) Feedback: When pupils try to do task-based exercises or activities, teachers keep an
eye on pupils’ answers. They sometimes give guidance, help, and tell what is right or
wrong. When pupils finish doing task based practice, teachers and pupils answer them
collaboratively. During this activity teachers also give some feedback, remind rule, etc.
For example, T3 11/11/1997, T1 18/11/1997, T7 24/11/1997, T7 1/12/1997, T6
1/12/1997, etc.
k) Active-non active teaching: Some teachers walk around the classrooms, use and
demonstrate materials, do gesture and mimics, etc. However, some teachers sit at their
desk in the classroom throughout the lesson, which is for 40 minutes. They say “you

Chapter Eight 220
answer, yes it is correct, no it is not correct, next question etc.”. That is, they do not do
any drawing, use chalkboard etc. Examples of non-active teacher: T3 11/11/1997, T6
17/11/1997, etc.
l) Songs-games: Teachers sometimes use songs and games while teaching English. This
activity is done either to motivate pupils or to refresh them. For example, T6
17/11/1997, T6 24/11/1997, T2 2/12/1997, etc.
m) Chalk board-based practice: Teachers and pupils do chalk-based practice in the
following forms. Sometimes teachers write some questions on the board and require
pupils to write answers to their notebooks. Alternatively, teachers write questions and
ask pupils to answer those questions orally. T1 11/11/1997, T2 11/11/1997, T3
11/11/1997, T5 12/11/1997, T7 17/11/1997, etc.
n) Repetition: All of the teachers do repetition practice. This is needed when new words,
expressions, etc. are taught. It happens like this: first, teachers repeat the pattern phrase,
sentence, then pupils repeat it. Repetition practices usually take place collaboratively.
That is, pupils are required to repeat something all together. However, teachers
sometimes require a particular pupil to repeat things several times if he/she
mispronounces a word or a sentence. The repetition practice was mostly used by T4. The
other teachers and dates of this practice are: T2 11/11/1997, T3 11/11/1997, T5
12/11/1997, T2 18/11/1997, T5 19/11/1997, T6 24/11/1997, T3 25/11/1997, etc.
o) Calling pupils’ names: Teachers call out pupils by name for various purposes. When
teachers ask questions, want pupils to do something, to catch the attention of non-
motivated pupils etc. they call them by their name such as Hasret (F), Cevdet (M), Birol
(M), Sibel (F), Emine (F). The dates of this pattern are; T1 11/11/1997, T3 11/11/1997,
T5 12/11/1997, T7 17/11/1997, T6 17/11/1997, T2 18/11/1997, T5 19/11/1997, etc.
p) Use of mother tongue (Turkish): Pupils among themselves speak in Turkish during
language lessons. That is, they whisper or speak in Turkish. The only case in which
pupils speak in English is the case when teachers ask them questions, require them to do
something on the board etc. Examples: T2 11/11/1997, T3 11/11/1997, T5 12/11/1997,
T7 17/11/1997, T6 24/11/1997, T4 26/11/1997, etc.

Chapter Eight 221
As for the teachers, some teachers use English (80 % or so) while teaching English,
explaining new words, structures, asking questions in another way. However, some
others explain English lessons in Turkish. Examples: T2 11/11/1997 (E), T5 12/11/1997
(E), T7 17/11/1997 (T), T6 17/11/1997 (E), T4 19/11/1997 (T), T6 24/11/1997 (E).
q) Examinations: Teachers set examinations to assess the students’ success or failure. It
is compulsory to apply a few sit down exams, during which time pupils are required to
answer questions in the written form. The other form of exam is an oral one, during
which time teachers ask questions to pupils orally and assess their answers. Those who
get over a 45 % mark are considered as successful. Examples: T4 26/11/1997, T1
2/12/1997, T4 3/12/1997, T4 10/12/1997, etc.
r) Pupil-based practice: Teachers usually follow the outline, or the step by step
procedure suggested in Teachers’ handbooks while teaching. Apart from this one, they
sometimes give tasks which require pupils to write their own dialogue, and do role-play
for various purposes, etc. In this case it seems that the English course books officially
suggested by the MOE are ignored for a while. Examples: T5 12/11/1997, T2
18/11/1997, T5 19/11/1997, T3 25/11/1997, etc.
s) Silence: Silence occurs when teachers ask questions or demand pupils to do exercises
in classrooms. Silence usually takes from 3 to 10 minutes. This pattern occurs several
times in each lesson. It seems that if pupils know the answer, they raise their hands and
say ‘teacher, can I say?’, but if they do not know the answer to teachers’ questions,
silence continues. For instance: T1 11/11/1997, T1 18/11/1997, T5 19/11/1997, T6
24/11/1997, T3 25/11/1997, etc.
t) Confusion, inaudible: Confusion indicates multiple, overlapping responses to
teachers’ questions. That is, when teachers ask questions, pupils raise their hands and
say “teacher, teacher, can I answer, me, etc.”. In other words, when teachers ask
questions several pupils want to answer and they talk at the same time. In this case it is
difficult to understand what they say individually. In other cases, when I listened to tape
recordings of these observations, there were some moments at which time some part of
the recorded conversations were not easily understood. Dots [....] indicate those spaces.
u) Preaching: Sometimes teachers stop explaining in lessons and give general advice for
pupils, saying ‘if you do this it is good for you’, ‘why do you not bring your books,

Chapter Eight 222
don’t speak, your duty is to listen to lessons, ...’. Sometimes, they reprimand bullying
pupils as well. For instance: T7 17/11/1997, T4 19/11/1997, etc.
v) Non-lesson based activity: This happened several times when teachers did some
activities other than teaching. For example, 24th
of November is celebrated as Teachers’
Day in Turkey every year. Pupils do some activities to give their thanks for teachers
such as singing songs, classroom games, etc. That is, although it was my observation
hour, teachers did not do any teaching activity until pupils finished their activities. In
some cases I interrupted lessons to take pictures. Sometimes teachers and pupils talked
about previous exam questions and answers, etc. For instance, T6 24/11/997, T7
24/11/997, T4 10/12/1997, etc.
w) Non-reflective activity: I observed classrooms 31 times from 11/11/1997 to
10/12/1997, but none of the teachers engaged in explicitly reflective activity. That is,
they did not seem to be looking at their teaching process, taking notes about their
teaching sessions, pupils’ answers, mistakes, etc. Besides, none of them did a short
assessment or quiz to see to what extent did pupils understand the topic. For example
T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 and T7.
x) No-Research: None of the teachers seemed to be undertaking an educational AR to
improve their teaching style or solve problematic issues in English language teaching.
They did not seem to have chosen a topic to study together. Each teacher taught a new
topic in each lesson during my observation. They also did not seem to be implementing a
set of collaborative actions to improve language teaching. Besides, I did not hear any
exchange of ideas or experience during breaks. Instead, they sat down in different places
and drank their tea or coffee during breaks.
y) Unexpected events: Although I tried to observe classrooms as much as possible, some
events limited my observations. For example, the illness of teachers, the death of their
close relatives, a pupil fainted during the lesson. For instance, T3 18/11/997, T2
25/11/1997, T1 25/11/1997, T5 26/11/1997, etc.
8.1.4. Further Classification of Language Teaching Patterns
This part describes how further classification of the above mentioned-patterns was
carried out, as a way of dealing with the complexity of the data. In other words, it was
possible to classify the above-mentioned patterns into larger groups according to certain

Chapter Eight 223
criteria. Thus I re-grouped the patterns noted above into five categories: teacher-based
patterns, pupil-based patterns, oral (audio) patterns, written patterns and visual patterns.
8.1.4.1. Teacher-based Patterns
These patterns can also be called guiding patterns, as they refer to the actions, events,
etc. done or initiated by teachers themselves in classrooms. In other words, teachers
while teaching English used the following types of patterns: greeting, checking
attendance sheet, the use of questions & answer, explanation, the use of action,
drawing/demo, audio-based teaching, feedback, active/passive teaching, the use of
songs/games, chalkboard-based practice, repetition, calling pupils' names, the use of the
mother tongue [Turkish], examinations, preaching [advice], non-lesson based activity,
non-reflective activity, no research.
8.1.4.2. Pupil-based Patterns
These patterns are engaged in by pupils individually or in chorus in the classroom.
Pupils do these patterns in response to their teachers’ commands. In this case pupils
seemed to be the performers of the teachers’ orders. Examples of these patterns are the
use of questions & answer, task-based practice, self-study, repetition, the use of Turkish,
pupil-based practice, silence, confusion/inaudible, and non-lesson-based activity.
8.1.4.3. Oral (Audio) based Patterns
Some of the above mentioned patterns can also be named oral (audio) based patterns.
Examples of these patterns are greeting, the use of question and answer, audio-based
practice, feedback, active/passive teaching, the use of songs/games, repetition, calling
pupils’ names, the use of mother tongue, examination [oral exams], pupil-based
practices, preaching and non-lesson based activity.
8.1.4.4. Written Patterns
The patterns that could be included in this group are checking the attendance sheet, task-
based practice, self-study, chalkboard based practice and examinations.
8.1.4.5. Visual Patterns
Teaching by acting, drawing and demonstrating are examples of these patterns.

Chapter Eight 224
8.1.5. The Frequency of Patterns
In order to explain ‘what was going on’ in classrooms or before the study commences, it
was my intention to calculate the frequency of these patterns to find out those which
were used most, and least, frequently. To that end the frequency of patterns was
calculated for each teacher. The following extract indicates how the observational data
was recorded and how the frequencies of these patterns were calculated.
Date:18.11.1997 Teacher: T2
Time:01.30 p.m. Nr of Ss:23
School: OTL Grade :Prep B Subject: Simple Present Tense
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st hour
Attendance sheet [once].
T asks motivation question [four exercises].
T and Ss solve qs on the bb [four exercises].
T asks q to 1 S, gets correct answer [17 times].
T calls Ss’s names [three times]. Question-answer
T explains/reminds a rule [twice]. pair-work
T had Ss repeat / pronounce together [four times] grammar-trans
T refused the w/a, asked another S [once]. repetition
T had Ss do their exercise [once]. %80 T, %20 E
T had Ss do pair-work to each other [four times].
T had Ss dictate qs to their notebook [twice].
T explains the new word/expression on the bb [once].
……………………………………………
According to the above transcription, T2 uses ‘the question & answer method’ 22 times,
checks the attendance sheet once, calls pupils’ names 3 times, etc. In another example,
T5, during my observation on 3/12/1997, used ‘question and answer’ method 72 times,
called pupils’ names 50 times, made repetition practice 10 times, used explanation 8
times and did ‘task-based practice’ twice. In this way after calculating the frequency of
every pattern, this analysis offered some useful information about the observational data
collected prior to the AR study. The following table indicates ‘frequently used and
infrequently used patterns.19
Teachers Frequently-used Patterns Infrequently-used Patterns
T1 Question and answer, chalkboard-
based practice, explanation, silence
and feedback
Feedback and self-study.
T2 Question and answer, chalkboard-
based practice, pupil-based practice
explanation, and drawing
Self-study, repetition and calling
pupils’ names.
19
Note that T1’s classroom was observed twice and the other teachers’ [T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, and T7]
classrooms were observed 4 times.

Chapter Eight 225
T3 Question and answer, chalkboard
based practice, self-study,
repetition and pupil-based practice
Silence, drawing, task-based practice.
T4 Repetition, question and answer,
chalkboard based practice, drawing
and explanation.
Feedback, task-based practice and
checking attendance sheet.
T5 Question and answer, calling
pupils’ names, repetition, pupil-
based practice and explanation
Repetition, task-based practice and
drawing.
pupils’ names, pupil-based practice,
audio-based practice and repetition.
Chalkboard-based practice, drawing,
self-study.
pupils’ names, chalkboard-based
practice, explanation and feedback.
Preaching, feedback, repetition.
8.1.6. Evidence From Written Notes
The second way of learning about the situations prior to the initiation of the AR study
was to obtain written notes from the participant teachers about their language teaching
experiences. To that end a diary was given to each teacher during the SFW and the
following note was written in the first page of the diary to encourage them to record their
feeling, observations, etc. during the study.
You have been teaching English as a foreign language for many
years and have considerable experience. Please describe some of
your significant experiences as far as you can remember. Thank
you very much. (diary, 11/11/1997, p. 13)
The following extracts provide some insights into the teachers’ language teaching
experiences.
For T1, “giving examples, using objects in class and giving examples about famous
people catches students' attention… Using extra materials (pictures, tape players etc.) is
effective in teaching 12.12.1997”.
For T2 “using authentic materials… helps students understand the new subject better.
Audio-visual aids improve the students’ skills…,. Asking questions to students…giving
quizzes at the end of lessons assure me that all students are involved in the lesson
18.11.1997. Giving key words in writing a short story improves their writing skills and
teaching songs makes the lesson interesting 10.12.1998”.

Chapter Eight 226
For T3 “…preparing exercises on grammatical items, and getting students to do them,
getting students to prepare mini lessons…, sometimes helping students and ignoring
their mistakes are necessary parts of language learning 9.12.1997”.
For T4 “…number of students in each classroom should be around 30, 36…, spoken and
oral practice should come before speaking practices. Pattern practices and dialogues
are useful in the initial sessions, demonstration is helpful while teaching new words…,
clues are helpful in question and answer technique…, repetition and pronunciation are
helpful in crowded classrooms; using classroom or concrete objects are useful,
attractive materials catch the attention of students, …teaching by action is helpful,
acquisition should precede teaching, grammatical structures should be taught
inductively 10.12.1997”.
For T5 “ demonstration, mimes should precede translation, translation is useful in
secondary school Grade 3, guessing the events in the book…, using real objects, activity
based games… and colourful and interesting materials catch students’ attention.
Students like ‘fill in the blanks’ exercises and learn new expressions…, Teaching
pronunciation through the words of Bingo games is useful, playing games catches
students attention when they feel bored 10.12.1997”.
T6 wrote down some of the teaching techniques rather than expressing her teaching
experience; “using real objects, repetition drills, question and answer, talking about
pictures, making dialogues, playing games, group and pair work, singing songs, making
up stories, role play, competition, substitution drills and fill in the blanks 8.12.1997”.
For T7 “…students cannot find opportunities to speak in English, they do not review
their information in English…, students have problems about memorising new words,…
it is useful if they use new words in sentences and hang them in a place where they can
see. …Pronunciation may become a problem…, …just one or two teachers speak in
English throughout the year, social relationships of teachers and students affect learning
English,… 11.12.1997”.
These comments suggest that most of the teachers were able to reflect on their teaching
aims to some extent, and to think about ways of enhancing students’ learning. (T7 was
an exception). The following points were made by one or more teachers:

Chapter Eight 227
- the use of authentic or ‘real’ materials;
- the value of audio-visual resources;
- strategies for attracting students’ attention;
- strategies for making lessons more interesting to students;
- tolerating mistakes;
- obtaining feedback from students (through quizzes)
- active learning strategies such as role-play, games, stories and pictures.
It could not be argued that the teachers were using an AR approach prior to the study, on
the basis of these written notes. However, they do suggest that most of the teachers were
at least aware of principles and techniques which are often associated with an AR
approach, such as student-centred learning, authentic experiences etc. The notes also
show some ability on the part of the teachers to articulate their own goals and beliefs.
(Only T2, however, refers to feedback from students.) Therefore, although there was no
evidence of AR having been adopted, the notes could be taken to suggest that the
teachers were to some degree equipped to embark on such an approach. It should also
be noted, however, that the observations of practice reported above do not entirely match
these written statements.
8.1.7. Other Clues about Language Teaching Situations before my SOAR
Apart from the above noted patterns and written evidence, the following points also help
us to understand the language teaching situation of the research context. The first
example illustrates teachers’ dissatisfaction with the current textbooks. For instance, T1
stated the following views about current English textbooks as follows:
I teach thirty hours a week, I teach at three different schools; these
are a primary and a high school, together with a private language
centre. An hour private lesson costs 4,000,000 TL which is equal
to £ 13.00 […] I make no preparation for these lessons because
the proficiency level of the pupils is low. I do not need to prepare
myself for the lesson. I skip the reading part of each unit because
they are difficult and there are many new words that even I do not
know. (int. 11/11/1997)
Like T1, T2 and others complained about the old course books when the meeting was
held with participant teachers on 17/4/1998. In these teachers’ views those books have
been used in public schools since 1970 without being revised or updated.

Chapter Eight 228
The other point is about homework given by teachers. They usually give homework at
the end of lessons and leave the classrooms without asking pupils if they had understood
that day’s topic or not. This also means teachers do not take any observational notes
about how they teach and what they get out of their teaching sessions. The following
extracts illustrate some of the lesson endings. For instance, T6 said, “write down your
own dialogues ten times as ‘swap-shop play’ and do the exercises on page forty” (obs.
17/11/1997). In another lesson T2 said,“ you write every new word ten times, don’t you,
I will check it later” (18/11/1997). T3 said to pupils at the end of lesson, “Read unit ten,
try to solve the exercises by yourself at home, only fill in section D, but the rest of the
exercises are your homework, do them at home” (obs. 25/11/1997). T2 “ write down
each new word ten times and write sentences about ‘I need and I do not need’” (obs.
2/12/1997). T3 “change the following ten sentences into past form” (obs. 2/12/1997). As
a result, these comments suggest that teachers do not routinely engage in reflective
activity.
8.1.8. General Findings of the Classroom Observations before the Study
The observational data about language teaching situations before the initiation of AR
study and the participant teachers’ language teaching experiences suggest the following
inferences:
a) Many of the teaching patterns are implemented or initiated by the teachers themselves
[8.1.4.1.]. Relatively few of the patterns are initiated by pupils [8.1.4.2.]. What this
implies is that language teaching sessions in the research context are heavily teacher-
dominated. This is partly the result of the centrally-controlled education system which
requires teachers to follow some guidelines such as the national curriculum, annual
plans, and textbooks.
b) However, by looking at pupil-based patterns one can claim that it would be possible
to run a pupil-centred programme to a certain extent. Since pupil-based patterns refer to
pupils’ involvement and participation in the learning process, these patterns also indicate
the possibility of undertaking AR study in language classrooms.
c) As seen in Chapter 6, some of the above mentioned teaching patterns – drawing,
demonstration, the use of action, etc. - are similar to the action plans used while
implementing the 1st
and 2nd
cycles of SOAR in 1998 and 1999. However, this does not

Chapter Eight 229
mean that teachers can undertake an AR study without greater familiarity with the
principles. Nor does it mean that teachers implicitly apply action plans. As I argued in
Chapter Six, critical reflection on classrooms also depends on having a sense of agency
(Pryor 1998), and this has yet to be established in the context of teaching in Turkey.
d) Audio-based practices [patterns] usually take place in language-based and half
language-based schools. However, this must not be seen a shortcoming of those teachers
who teach in normal schools. The situation exists because normal schools are not usually
provided with supplementary teaching materials.
e) It is clear from the frequency of patterns that teachers devote much energy to the
teaching of English, and that they mostly use question and answer methods.
f) There was very little direct evidence that the teachers engaged in any reflective
activity.
g) All the evidence presented in this section suggests that many of the patterns are
teacher-based. It also suggests that they are not aware of AR or its contents.
8.2. More Reflections from Language Classrooms during the AR Study
The preceding section described typical language-teaching practices, schools and
classroom contexts prior to the initiation of the study, in order to illustrate the general
situation. This section describes the language teaching situations after the initiation of
the AR study. In other words, this part explains what was taking place in classrooms
after the commencement of the teachers’ involvement in an AR study. Illustrating how
or to what extent did the language teachers use action plans seemed to be important
because teachers’ prime task, as seen in Chapter 3, was to teach the contents included in
the NC. In this sense providing some extracts that reflect the language teaching
conditions during the implementation of the AR study may give us more clues about the
possibility of using AR studies in Turkey. Note that my intention is not to distinguish the
language teaching situations with sharp lines as before and after the initiation of the AR,
but to provide some overall views of the language teaching situations.
8.2.1. Some Extracts as Evidence of Practice in Language Classrooms
Teachers’ classrooms were observed 15 times to see whether or not they applied/used
action plans in 1998 and 1999. Each of these observations was tape-recorded and

Chapter Eight 230
transcribed. Hence it was possible to analyse these transcriptions by coding and finding
patterns, as done in 8.1.3. However, it is important to state here that my attention
focussed on the following points during the classroom observations that took place after
the initiation of the AR study. These were:
a) to observe whether or not teachers used action plans while teaching English,
b) if they applied, to identify which action plan(s) was/were used,
c) to take notes in my diary about how the action plan(s) was/were taught.
The participant teachers usually greeted students and checked the attendance sheets at
the outset. Some teachers asked several motivation questions before teaching that day’s
topic. For instance, T2 started the lesson with a game called ‘Chinese whisper’ (diary,
13/5/1999). In this game the teacher speaks (whispers) a sentence in one pupil’s ear.
This pupil tells the same sentence the other pupil’s ear, sitting next to him/her and the
game goes on like this. The core of the game is that each pupil is supposed to understand
and pass on the whisper correctly.
After this game the teacher explained that day’s topic and used one of her action plans
that referred to teaching English vocabulary by drawing and picture. To that end she
showed some wedding cards to teach the words ‘wedding, bride, bridegroom’. She also
showed a lottery ticket while teaching the words ‘lottery, lottery ticket, and jackpot
prize’. Like this, she taught the words ‘tear, star, a starry night’ by drawing figures on
the board.
Another teacher (T6) was teaching that day’s topic while using action plans. In 1999 she
agreed to use three action plans that refer to teaching English words by using ‘synonym,
antonyms, pictures and photographs and by explaining them in English. The following
brief extract indicates that she tries to teach new words by explaining them in English.
Teacher: T6 Date; 5.5.1999 Time; 10;10
Task: Classroom observation 1, Place; 7-B
One student reads text from the course book,
T6; what does this word mean? ‘ought’ means probability, other is ‘heart-attack’ in English
please,
SF; very dangerous, medical condition in the heart,
T6; in the hearth, ….lottery….a competition which people risk a small amount of money
what are the other words?, …..inaud….other people, yes,
SF; inaud………
T6; what are the other words?, yes Burak
SM; heart attack
SM; a very dangerous medical condition in the heart

Chapter Eight 231
T6; Erdi,
SM; ….past participle of…..inaud.
T6 ; say it in English ,……..’take off’ is the opposite of land, ‘land’ is opposite of the ‘take off’,
did you find the meaning of ‘take off and land’?
SF;..inaud….. T6; inaud……
SF; inaud……reading a text,
T6 what does it mean?…..’metropolitan’ means a big city, ‘inner city’ means inside the city,
Ss; inside of the city,
………………………………………………………………
Observation 1: One can claim that teachers can use action plans while following the NC.
In other words, teachers can both follow the NC and use action plans at the same time.
In this case we need to look at the other extracts to have more clues about the possibility
of using action plans while teaching the contents included in the NC. The following
extract taken from my classroom observation in T4’s classroom reveals this:
Date: 26.5.1998 School: H. S. T. I.
Teacher: T4 Classroom: 6-F
Time: 10:20 a.m. Task: Classroom observation and tape-recording.
[……noise…………………………………..] 2-3 minute.
T4: Do not speak, don’t speak, Mr. Tomakin, is there anything we should do in this lesson?
ET: If possible, in this lesson carry on your normal teaching by using the words included in my
list, and also use ‘demonstration or figures’ while teaching. Do you have list now?
T4: No, it is in my cupboard, but I ticked off related words, while teaching now, I will
use these words, demonstration, draw pictures. T4: Do not speak children, now I will use
the words included in 'reading part', apart from this one I will also use similar words
between English and Turkish, then we will see which one do you understand better.
Veli is reading a book in the garden, now I write it in another form.
Veli is sitting at the desk in the garden, what is desk?, desk?
Students: sira sira [in Turkish].
T4: Ali is playing ‘basketball’ in the garden. [ T4 translates it into English].
Ali is playing ‘football’ in the garden.
Ali is playing ‘tennis’ in the garden.
T4: How do you understand the word ‘football’ related to other words? Is it easy or not?
Students: easy, easy, we learn it easily.
T4: Why do you say it is easy?
Students: It is similar to Turkish words, its pronunciation is easy.
…………………………………………………………………..
The above quoted extract suggests that teachers were able to ignore the contents of the
NC to some extent if they wanted to use action plans while teaching English. This
extract (and also the next one) also shows how the teacher deferred to me, as the
“expert” for advice. This suggests that the teacher was not acting autonomously as a
researcher in his/her own right. I will return to this point later.

Chapter Eight 232
The following extract also shows a teacher working through an action plan for a
restricted amount of time. This teacher taught that day’s topic for about 30 minutes,
stopped using the textbook and asked me what she should do in the last 10 minute of the
lesson. The following is a brief extract from the classroom observation.
Teacher: T5 Date 13.5.1999 Time: 12:10
Task: classroom observation Class: 8-D Subject: passives sentences
…………………………………………………………………….
T5; what shall we do?
ET: there is 10 minutes to go,
T5; what shall we do?
ET; let us ask about the association how they learn, create associations for the new words?
T5; about today’s words?
ET: it can be, but if you give an example in the form of terrible and ter
T5; l
isten now, while learning the last weeks’ words such as look, smell, feel, one of you said
that s/he learnt ‘terrible through ter’, terrible in English means bad, ter in Turkish means bad,
well, look at today’s words and how do you put these words into your mind?
Ss: I remember the word ‘rich’ from the film riche rich,[cartoon on TV],
T5; yes,
T5; body, how do you keep it in your mind?
Ss; there is an ad about it on the TV, ….an ads on the TV teacher,
SM; body shaper
T5; is there something like that?
SM; yes,
T5; the word ‘cool’, how do you memorise it?
T5 Mr Tomakin, they say they remember ‘cool’ from ‘cold’
SM; teacher the word ‘diary’ comes to my mind from ‘daire’ [circle]
T5; there is no semantic relation in between but,
SM; from scriptural similarity,
T5; he , yes it is written as it was written in Turkish
……………………………………………………..
Observation 2: One can claim that teachers can ignore the NC to some extent although
they are responsible for teaching it. Or teachers need to ignore the NC to some extent if
they want to use action plans.
If all of the transcriptions are considered, there are some cases in which the participant
teachers either did not apply action plans on purpose or were not able to use them for
some reason. The following extracts provide some information about the use of action
plans and language teaching situations. For instance, T5 used action plans for about ten
minutes in 1998 (obs. 13/5/1998), but she did not or could not use any of the action
plans during my first observation in 1999 (obs. 6/5/1999). During this lesson the teacher
(T5) and the pupils in her classroom [8-D] did some oral and written exercises about the
structure ‘what's the matter?’ The teacher taught this structure because of the NC and
official textbook.

Chapter Eight 233
T2 did not apply any of the action plans during my first observation in 1999. Similarly,
T7 did not apply any of the action plans in 1998 and 1999. T7 teaches grammar lessons
to the pupils in prep classes. During my classroom observations this teacher taught the
topic ‘direct indirect speech’ in English and did some related exercises about it. So we
can formulate one more observation.
Observation 3: Either the participant teachers were not eager to use any of the action
plans while they were teaching English. Or these teachers could not apply action plans
owing to the NC. This is because the NC requires teachers to teach the contents of
textbooks by the end of the year. Yet, there may be more complex reasons: there was
also evidence that teachers did not feel a sense of “ownership” of their own action plans
(as evidenced in their deference to my opinion).
8.2.2. Summary of Observations
It appeared that three types of options seem to be possible about the use of action plans
and following the NC at the same time. However, the above noted options provide some
clues about the possibility of using the agreed action plans. Here the action plans refer to
collaboratively agreed decisions about the selected topic -vocabulary teaching. Hence
the above noted three observations may not be valid if the focus of the study was
different from the current one (vocabulary teaching). For instance, if one of the action
plans had been ‘teaching writing’, we do not know whether or how T6 or T7 might have
applied it in classrooms. Consequently, the above noted observations may be valid only
for the selected topic. It seems necessary, at this point, to explore the participant
teachers’ views about the amount of time they were able or willing to spend on their
action plans.
8.2.3. Teachers’ Views of ‘Time’ When Using Action Plans
I decided to ask teachers about the time factor because some teachers did not or could
not use action plans during the 1st
cycle of the research in 1998. It seemed that the NC
and annual plans were potential barriers to the study. So the focus of the questions
investigated the possibility of ignoring the NC to some extent. In this context departing
from the NC also means departing from the annual plans. The questions also
investigated the amount of time that might be devoted to action plans by teachers. To
that end, teachers were interviewed to learn about their views before proceeding with the

Chapter Eight 234
2nd
cycle of the SOAR in 1999. For instance, the following interview reveals teachers’
views about ignoring the NC and applying action plans.
ET: … Then, let’s sum up this point like this, ... In the annual program, the taught topics
are divided into months and weeks. Which topic will be taught in which week is already
known. It is also known that the time period of each lesson is 40 minutes. In that 40
minute how much time do you spend? That is, how much time can you spend for the
action plans? There is no possibility of delaying lessons. Can you ignore the annual plan
and apply the action plans?
T4: No we do not have such a possibility,………..
ET: Let me put it another way, for example, to what extent are delays in the annual plan
allowed? That is, you are expected to finish [teach] all the topics in the course book,
T4: Yes, we are expected to do so, ….. and the head-teacher wants to see excuses (…), if you
could not finish…. (T4, 26/3/1999).
The above noted points about ignoring the NC and using action plans in classrooms are
only stated by T4. Some other teachers [e.g. T2, T5 and T6] also raised this point. For
instance, in T5’s view she can spend “…about 10 minutes…” to apply action plans (int.
26/3/1999).
In summary, the observations and interviews indicated that teachers did not stop
teaching the NC while using action plans in classrooms. In their view it was possible to
spend some time to use action plans; but they also stated that much of the time in a 40
minutes lesson would be spent to teach the NC. The remaining part of this chapter is
about the data analysis of the 4th
, 5th
, and 6th
research questions and provides detailed
information about them.
8.3. Participant Teachers’ Views of Action Research
Introduction
This part aims to answer the first article of the 4th
research question. This article aimed
to explore five participant teachers’ view of AR. The participant teachers were not
sufficiently aware of AR during my field studies in 1997. Hence the following
questionnaires and interviews indicate teachers’ understanding of AR -its definition,
objectives, etc.- after their involvement in a SOAR study in 1998 and 1999.
It was stated in Chapter 5 that some of the AR studies on language teaching did not give
more information about the action models and action plans used. This point was
criticised me because the readers of those studies are obliged to guess the used action
models and action plans. In presenting the teachers’ views, I have followed Wolcott’s

Chapter Eight 235
dictum that “the aim of qualitative analysis is to get rid of [data]” (Wolcott 1990, p.18).
Yet keeping the evidence separate from the discussions and conclusions also seems to be
necessary to enable the readers to see which parts are facts and which parts are
inferences (Nisbet & Watt (1984, p.93). Hence each section below first presents
evidence by quotations, and then offers a discussion and interpretation of the data. It is
important to note that the general implications of the study are explained in the
following chapter.
8.3.1. Teachers’ Perception of AR
Four of the teachers [T2, T4, T5 and T6] saw AR as an activity carried out by teachers in
schools, but their further explanation revealed different views. Hence each teacher’s
view needs to be represented individually. Note that T6 answered the all the questions
briefly from the beginning to end of the study.
For instance, in one teacher's (T2) view AR was an activity to get more outcomes and to
improve tasks by acting as teacher researcher, to solve problems by using different
methods, and to observe if any changes have taken place (quest. 25/5/1998). This
teacher’s view of AR, after finishing the 1st
cycle of AR, appeared as follows:
Look, I understood like this: AR is an activity that aims to solve a
problem and allows teachers to become more productive. Suppose
that pupils have problems with the Simple Present Tense. How can
I prevent pupils from making mistakes? For that purpose we
investigate materials, put these into practice and evaluate
outcomes. She again tried to answer my question by asking further
questions. To what extent have I been helpful to pupils?, To what
extent did I used to teach well in the past?... This is what I
understand from AR. We must see ourselves as researchers.
(int. 29/5/1998)
Her following view is worth including here because this may indicate teachers’ attitude
towards an outsider [critical friend, facilitator, etc.]:
... this study seems strange to us, as we have not done such a study
before, our every word is being recorded and we feel a bit timid.
(int. 25/3/1999)
In this view it seems that teachers feel examined and they do not feel comfortable either.

Chapter Eight 236
In another view “AR is a study which indicates all details of that study” (T4 25/5/1998,
quest.). As seen this view was not entirely clear, and the teacher’s view of AR was
explored in an interview at the end of the 1st
cycle. He commented:
What can a teacher researcher do in each stage of teaching?
Under what conditions would AR be undertaken? To what extent
can AR be put into practice? How do pupils learn? What must be
done to improve teaching? ( int. 27/5/1998)
In the view of (T5) “ … action research refers to research itself. That is, AR refers to
everything done by researchers; the procedures and method followed or used by
researchers (quest. 25/5/1998). Yet her view at the end of the 1st
cycle was:
When teachers teach a topic, the procedure, steps and objectives
identified by teachers all refer to AR. Teachers bringing different
things to the classroom, etc. ( int. 27/5/1998)
Two of the other teachers repeated the similar views in the questionnaire and interviews,
but defined AR differently. T6 answered my question by looking at the completed
questionnaire and in her view “AR is an activity which provides someone with success
and productivity” (quest. 25/5/1998), (int. 28/5/1998). In the other teacher’s view (T7)
“AR is an activity to achieve the utmost benefit from the available resources and
materials we have” (quest. 25/5/1998). He repeated the same answer in the interview by
saying “as I said in the questionnaire...” (int. 28/5/1998).
8.3.2. Discussion
From teachers’ answers to the interviews and questionnaires it is seen that each teacher
defines AR somewhat differently and eventually various types of views about AR arise.
It seems to me that these teachers had no intention to support or challenge other
colleagues’ views while stating their own views. On the other hand, the diversity of
teachers’ views is not an uncommon thing. That is, it is possible to see diverse or similar
views about definition, objectives, etc. of AR in the literature - Somekh (1989), Elliott
(1991), McNiff (1995) among others.
However, it seems necessary to raise further comments about the participant teachers’
views of AR first. Some teachers appeared to hold an “instrumental” view: AR was
about increasing productivity or effectiveness, [T2, T6], or about getting the most out of
resources and materials [T7]. These views further imply that AR studies do not

Chapter Eight 237
investigate theoretical concepts or empirical topics. Similarly, it may be worth noting
here that with the exception of T2, teachers did not talk about the study material given
them. During interviews these teachers could have said that ‘yes I read the definitions
posed by Kemmis & McTaggart (1988), Elliott (1991) and McBride (1995), etc. The
teachers’ views of action research appeared to be fairly limited, therefore. AR
represented either a set of procedures, or a technique for increasing productivity.
It seemed that only one teacher’s [T2] view of AR was similar to the views stated in the
literature of AR. For instance, in an interview (int. 29/5/1998) T2 stated that she had
read the study materials on AR and tried to remember one example about the classroom
observation. Hence, it appeared that T2 had indeed read the study materials given to her.
Although other teachers stated their views of AR, they did not seem to be clear about
what AR was. One can pose that, unlike the exception of T2, other teachers did not read
the study materials given to them or that other teachers were not very interested in the
study.
One possible reason for the teachers’ not being fully aware of AR may derive from the
style or complexity of the study materials given them. That is, these teachers may have
found these materials unclear or complex although each topic was explained briefly in
one or two pages with examples. The language [English] of the materials may therefore
have been difficult for the participant teachers because they taught and used English as a
foreign language.
Similarly, it is possible to raise other critiques of the study materials. Nevertheless,
considering the fact that these teachers were individually visited in 1999 in their free
times to introduce the notion of AR and to answer their potential questions [case report
8], there did not appear to be much commitment from them. To that end 12 visits were
paid to their schools in total. During these visits the notion of AR was introduced step by
step by using Somekh (1989) and McBride’s (1995) model of AR. In doing so, as
described previously, we collected data from pupils, analysed this and produced action
plans in 1999. After this stage the teachers’ task was to implement action plans and my
task was to do classroom observations.
Although individual visits, written materials and informal talks were used to introduce
AR to the teachers, it can also be claimed that the above mentioned ways may not be
appropriate to introduce the notion of AR in Turkey. Or there may be other reasons that

Chapter Eight 238
hinder the introduction of AR. Among the potential reasons is that teachers may have
been unsympathetic to the study even though they were volunteers at the outset of the
study. Or they may have lost their motivation because of tasks to be done in schools, etc.
Another possible reason for teachers being partially aware of AR may relate to the time
spent to introduce AR. It is widely known that researchers bring their studies to an end
whether these studies are short-term or long-term projects. In doing so the notion of
‘time’ constrains educational studies (MacDonald & Walker 1977). Although the
participant teachers received some study materials on AR and its elements in 1997, time
was not available to theoretically introduce AR to teachers. In addition, teachers were
individually visited in 1999 before proceeding with the 2nd
cycle of AR. However, one
can still claim that if more time had been spent on introducing AR, it is possible that
they may have gained more understanding of AR.
Teachers’ work load in schools may have also affected their motivation to become
genuinely involved in the study. The term ‘work-load’ includes setting oral and written
exams, marking exam papers and homework, and doing some preparation for each unit
to be taught. Teachers are also responsible for preparing daily plans that indicate
procedures, exercises, etc. to be used while teaching a new topic. Besides this, teachers
have to serve as stewards in school one day in a week. This involves keeping an eye on
pupils during breaks, walking up and down in corridors. For instance, once I was
interviewing T7 and T6 was sitting next to him. She said, “if we were not so tired, we
would help more” (int. 28/5/1999). To conclude, it seemed that only one teacher’s
answer [T2] was similar to the definitions posed in the literature of AR. Overall, it can
be stated that, with one exception, teachers did not hold clear views of the nature of AR.
8.3.3. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Objectives of AR
The participant teachers’ answers about the objectives of AR showed variation as
happened while they were defining AR itself. It seemed that a few of the teachers
defined the objective of AR in terms of language teaching and improving the situation.
Others repeated their previous answers about ‘the definition of AR’. Hence, the
following part first introduces how the teachers see the objectives of AR and it then
discusses possible reasons behind these. For instance, in one view the aim of AR “is to
solve a problem and improve the situation” (T2, 29/5/1998, int.). Two of the teachers
[T4 and T5] stated their views in terms of language teaching. For the former the aims of

Chapter Eight 239
AR, “ are to improve language teaching and to identify teaching material. If teachers
have sufficient materials, language teaching may become more successful...’ (int.
27/5/1998). For the latter “practicality” is the aim of AR and she maintained that AR
studies must aim at “ teaching the best and easiest way while teaching pupils. We must
consider practicality while teaching something” (int. 27/5/2998). In another view the
aim of AR is to bring someone/something from an unsuccessful situation to a successful
situation” (T6 int. 28/5/1998). The final view is that the aim "is to achieve the utmost
benefit from the resources or materials we have (T7, 28/5/1998, int).
8.3.4. Discussion
It must be noted here that some of the comments, raised in the previous section, about
the preparation of the study materials, time constraints and teachers’ work-load in
schools, etc. are equally true for this section too. However, teachers’ views about the
objectives of AR need further discussion for the following reasons.
First, it is clear that one teacher’s answers about the objectives of AR are similar to the
views posed by Rapoport (1970), Nunan (1989), McKernan (1991) among others.
According to these researchers, the aim of AR study is to address immediate and present
problems or situations. The other aim of AR was to bring about improvement by
changing the situation. As seen in 8.3.1. that T2 was the only person who stated ideas
that were similar to the views included in the literature. It seems that T2’s answer is
further evidence that she had indeed read/studied the given material, but we are not quite
sure about it.
Besides this, two of the teachers (T4 and T5) defined the goal of AR in terms of
language teaching and improving the situation. It is possible that they may have defined
the objective of AR in terms of language teaching rather than revealing a general
definition. This is because they are language teachers and they teach English. It is not
clear whether these teachers were aware of the wide range of applications of AR. One
(T5) teacher stated the objective of AR as ‘practicality’. This may indicate some
recognition of the aim of AR to relate directing to the improvement of practice.
T7 repeated the same answer which he gave to the question about the ‘definition of AR’.
It can be argued that T7’s view does not match with the views about the objectives of

Chapter Eight 240
AR included in Chapter 4. For him AR studies are undertaken to get the best outcomes
from the study.
We can conclude that only one teacher [T2] seemed to be aware of the literature on AR.
Two teachers’ views [T4 T5] have some similarity to those expressed in the literature of
AR if the objectives of AR are defined in terms of language teaching. Since two teachers
[T6 and T7] repeated their previous answers about ‘definition of AR’, and these answers
do not reflect the objective of AR. In general it cannot be claimed that all of the teachers
expressed much understanding about the objectives of AR.
8.3.5. How Teachers see the Stages of AR
Teachers’ views about the stages of AR was not clear except in two cases, as also
happened in the previous sections. For instance, the stages of AR in T2’s view were
“identifying a problem, collecting data, implementing and evaluating (quest. 25/5/1998).
This teacher [T2] stated the same views when she was interviewed on 29/5/1998. In
another view (T4) the stages of AR cycle were “identifying a topic to study,
investigating details of the topic, and bringing about results” (quest 25/5/1998.). Yet
this teacher stated different views about the stages of AR in the interview:
A topic must be chosen as a starting point. Every teacher must
prepare one aspect of that chosen topic. Then each teacher does
the relevant things about his/her topic. Finally the evaluation of
the study is done by all the teachers together ( int. 27/5/1998).
In the view of T5 AR has four stages in each cycle, but these stages do not seem to
involve a cyclical process.
A topic must be chosen, the contexts in which the topic will be
used must be identified, the ways of implementation must be
chosen and the methods and techniques which will be used must
be identified as well. (quest. 25/5/1998)
One teacher (T6) repeated her ‘definition of AR’ rather than explaining the ‘stages of
AR’ (quest. 25/5/1998), (int. 28/5/1998). According to the final teacher (T7) “one can
study everything in an AR study, but the study must produce general statements or rules
at the end” (quest. 25/5/1998), (int. 28/5/1998).

Chapter Eight 241
8.3.6. Discussion
The following claims can be raised about the participant teachers’ views of the stages of
AR. Primarily, it can be claimed that one of the teachers [T2] seems to be aware of the
stages of AR because her views resemble the views of Kemmis & McTaggart’s (1988).
Two teachers (T4 and T5) did describe a linear series of tasks. T4 also mentioned a
collaborative focus on evaluation. Neither teacher explicitly referred, however, to a
cyclical process.
In addition, T6 repeated the ‘definition of AR’ rather than explaining the stages of AR. It
must be noted here that T6 repeated the same answer three times although I asked a
different question in each time. This may mean that T6 did not understand the stages of
AR although she had read the study materials given to her. It may also mean that T6 did
not read the study materials at all.
T7’s views about the stages of AR do not reflect a cyclical process for the AR study.
Instead, T7’s view indicates a methodological approach to any research that can be
named the inductive or deductive approach. T7’s view does not, therefore, show an
understanding of the stages of AR. We can conclude that only one teacher’s [T2] answer
reflects the stages of AR studies as far as the literature of AR is concerned while two
others [T4, T5] showed some awareness of the staged nature of enquiry. T6 and T7 did
not seem to be aware of the definition, objective and stages of AR.
8.3.7. Teachers’ View of Implementing AR
Out of five teachers, four of them (T2, T4, T6 and T7) stated that AR studies should be
undertaken “collaboratively” (quest. 25/5/1998), but only one teacher (T5) stated that
AR studies should be undertaken “individually” (quest. 25/5/1998). Those who
advocated collaboration further stated that if they perform collaboratively, more benefit,
more valid and objective results may be achieved”.
In interviews, these teachers put forward the following reasons for the necessity of
collaboration. In one view (T2) “they [teachers] can benefit from other colleagues’
experience” (int. 29/5/1998). In another view [T4] “each teacher’s experience must be
evaluated collaboratively and this evaluation must be written as a report” (int.
27/5/1998). Two of the teachers [T6, T7] did not state further information ‘why’

Chapter Eight 242
collaboration was preferred (28/5/1998). During these interviews the only counter view
was raised by T5, who presented her reasons as follows:
Those who enter into collaboration may use other methods than
those I use; an individual teacher identifies a topic and continues
to investigate that topic. For instance, other colleagues may raise
a very different view about the topic, but their techniques may not
fit into my classroom, or I may not like their views.
(int. 27/5/1998)
8.3.8. Discussion
The participant teachers’ views of undertaking AR studies remind us of the common
dispute in the literature of AR that focuses on ‘collaborative or individual’ research. It is
widely suggested in the literature that AR should be undertaken collaboratively
according to some researchers such as Elliott (1991, p.55), Kemmis (1997, p. 175),
McNiff (1995 p.175.). But for some others AR studies can also be undertaken
individually (Nunan 1994, p.18). The important point that caught my attention is that
most of the participant teachers, [four teachers] took the side of collaboration
recommended in the literature of AR.
The teachers’ choice of collaboration is interesting, remembering the fact that these
teachers were not aware of AR before their involvement in a SOAR study. Thus far the
analysis of the collected data indicated that many of the teachers were not fully aware
about the definition, objectives and stages of AR. It is possible that the teachers inferred,
from my own presence in their classrooms, that AR was a collaborative research
endeavour. However, it is not possible to say with certainty where this view originated.
8.3.9. Teachers’ View of Data Collection Tools
Teachers’ choices of how to collect data and the reasons behind them were explored
through interviews and questionnaires. So teachers’ data collection tools and the reasons
behind them can be stated as follows. For T2, “questionnaire and observation” can be
used and “ interviews, audio and video recordings do not seem to be so practical”
(quest. 25/5/1998). T4’s view is not clear about the ways of collecting data and it
appeared as follows,“ it must be done by seeing, it must continue by practice, ‘note’
must be taken and the result of the study must be discussed and reported” (quest.
25/5/1998). When he was interviewed about data collection tools on 27/5/1998, his reply
was “observation”, but he continued to explain how he teaches English. In another view

Chapter Eight 243
[T5] data can be collected through “demonstration, animation, drawing, role-play,
taking pictures and using visual materials” (quest. 25/5/1998). For T6 “observation,
interview and diary notes” are more practical tools (quest. 25/5/1998), (int. 28/5/1998).
T7’s reply to the questionnaire was that, “scientific methods must be used and
researchers must see informants”. Since it was not clear what he [T7] meant by saying
‘researchers must see informants’. (quest. 25/5/1998), he was interviewed on 28/9/1998
and he stated that data must be collected through the use of “interviews”.
8.3.10. Discussion
In general, the participant teachers stated various views about data collection methods,
but a few points need further explanation. For instance T5’s views of data collection
tools such as ‘demonstration, animation, drawing and role-play’ were not mentioned in
the literature of AR in Chapter Four. Yet again this teacher may think that she can still
collect data through the use of ‘role-play, drawing, etc.’ Besides this, T4’s views of data
collection tools seemed to me unclear, but I listened to him without interrupting. Yet
when he went on to explain how he taught English, I realised that he did not know much
about data collection tools because I had not asked him the question ‘how do you teach
English?’ In addition, it was difficult for me to understand T7’s answer in the
questionnaire. His answer - scientific methods must be used - is a general statement
about research methods.
Summary, the analysis of the collected data thus far can be stated as follows. Only one
teacher answered all the questions [2] about definition, objectives, etc. of AR in an
acceptable way as far as the literature of AR is concerned. Other teachers answered the
questions correctly sometimes twice or three times, out of five question. Hence it seems
that four of the participant teachers were not fully aware of AR.
In general the question of introducing AR to other teachers in Turkey seem to be an
important matter for further AR researchers. The following table displays teachers'
answers. Plus (+) refers to satisfactory answer, whereas minus (-) does not. The letter C
stands for ‘collaboration’ and I stands for ‘individual’ efforts in AR studies.

Chapter Eight 244
Display of Teachers’ Theoretical Answers on AR
Teachers Definition
of AR
Objective of
AR
Stages of AR How AR is
undertaken
Data
Collection
T2 + + + C +
T4 - + or ? + or ? C +
T5 + + or ? + or ? I +
T6 - - - C +
T7 - - - C +
8.4. Participant Teachers’ Views of 'Action Plans' (1998 & 1999)
Introduction
This section aims to answer the second article of the 4th
research question. This article
aimed to explore five participant teachers’ views of action plans, through an analysis of
teachers’ views given in 1998 and 1999. It then offers an overall discussion and
interpretation of those views. The term ‘action plans’ refers to collaboratively agreed
decisions that were used in order to improve the selected topic. As seen in Chapter 6,
five of the the teachers agreed to apply three action plans from a pre-specified list in
1998. This meant that the action plans were common to the three types of school and a
cross-case comparison of action plans was available in 1998. However, each participant
teacher produced and used his/her own action plans in 1999. Since there was no
common action plan in 1999, a cross-case presentation of the data was less possible.
However, I explore in general the implications of action plans by comparing teachers’
views with one other. In general, some of the teachers did not/could not implement
action plans in 1998 and 1999, but some others spent some time in applying action plans
in their classrooms.
8.4.1. Teachers’ Views of Action Plans
As stated above some of the teachers were not able, or chose not to use the agreed action
plans in the classroom while they were actually teaching English. These teachers stated
various reasons when they were consulted. For instance, one stated:
For instance I could not implement these vocabulary tasks in my
classroom. I had to set written examinations. I could not give any
results about these [action plans], also holidays affected things. I
had to finish teaching the contents of the English book.
(int. 29/5/1998)

Chapter Eight 245
T2’s and T5’s classrooms were observed twice in 1999 and neither of them applied any
of the action plans during my first observations. For instance, in the second observation
of T2, she applied one action plan while teaching the words ‘ to shine, bride, tears, star
and lottery’. Her views of action plans appeared as follows in 1999:
When pupils learn through pictures, they do not forget them.
For instance, I showed a picture of a ‘bride’, I showed three
different pictures of a bride, they (pupils) do not forget these
(words)... These [words] can be taught better through pictures
if more time is spent. (int. 14/5/1999)
As stated above T5 did not use any action plans during my first observation, but she
spent some time [about 10 to 20 minutes] in the second observation to implement action
plans and tried to teach new words through associations and PSS similarity. For
instance, the words - “yoghurt, ayran, vitamin and favourite...”- were used to see the
influence of PSS similarity. When the teacher asked the meaning of these words, most of
the pupils [Class D] stated the Turkish meaning of these words in chorus.
T5 also explored the influence of using ‘association’ and required pupils to learn the
meaning of the new words included in that days’ topic, by comparing them to something
else [an image, symbol, formula, etc.]. For that purpose pupils created the following
associations.
New Word Association Explanation
rich riche-rich a cartoon shown on theTV in Turkey,
cool cold both have refreshing feature,
product producer most of the letters are the same,
heat hat one pupil says that ‘if we delete the
letter ‘e’, the word becomes ‘hat’,
flavour flower similar pronunciation,
diary daire [Turkish word] similar pronunciation,
........ .................... ............
The following picture indicates how T5 tries to teach action plans in the lesson.

Chapter Eight 246
T5 stated the following views about the action plans implemented in 1999. "drawing,
demonstrating and teaching through actions are the quickest way of teaching
vocabulary to pupils". Her view about teaching through actions or by acting was that
“pupils like demonstrating like an actor”. T5 stated the following view about teaching
through ‘association’ “very different things emerged. Nearly every pupil produced a new
thought about this issue…” (int. 13/5/1999).
It must be noted here that this teacher [T5] applied the action plans in 1998 too by using
some words that refer to PSS similarity such as restaurant, hamburger, lemonade, pizza,
secretary, message, film, film-star, pop-star, favourite, football, cassette, doctor,
telephone, hotel,...” (obs. 13/5/1998). This teacher mainly stressed the importance of
PSS similarity when she was interviewed at the end of the 1st
cycle of AR in 1998. In her
view, "if pupils start learning English with hundreds of unknown new words, they may
dislike the English lesson” (int. 27/5/1998).
T6, similarly, was not able to apply action plans during my second observation in 1998.
T6 and her pupils rehearsed the play ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ in the classroom for the
ceremony that is held at the end of the academic year. Yet she used the words “
aquarium, heater, central heating, inject, injection, injector, spider, hurt, under...” in the
first observation to test the influences of action plans (obs. 13/5/1998). Her view was:
The words in that list and other common words are easily
understood. These words must be taught in year 4 and 5.
Concrete words, daily used words must be taught first because
pupils find it hard to learn abstract words. Besides, explaining
abstract words by picture or animation is difficult as well.
(int. 28/5/1998)

Chapter Eight 247
Two observations took place in T6’s classroom on 5/5/1999 and 12/51999. Her action
plans in 1999 aimed to teach words through ‘pictures, photographs, synonyms,
antonyms and by giving brief explanations in English’. In both cases she tried to teach
the meaning of new words in English [shortly and simply] as an action plan. The
following is an extract from the first observation.
‘ a heart-attack’ means a very dangerous condition in the heart,
‘lottery’ means people risk a small amount of money,
‘to take off’ is the opposite to ‘land’,
‘metropolitan’ means ‘a big city’,
‘inner city’ means ‘inside the city’,
‘to drop out’ means ‘to leave’. (obs. 5/5/1999)
At the end of this study in 1999 this teacher stated the following views about the action
plans and the selected topic-vocabulary teaching:
Now we do not teach the new vocabularies any more. We teach
them more in prep classes and in year 1. If the class is year 2 and
3, we teach vocabulary less... (int. 26/3/1999). T6 maintains that
pupils at prep classes learn well through drawings and pictures...
but in other classes it does not work like this That is, pupils are
supposed to find the meaning of new words. We teach only those
words whose meaning could not be found by pupils. There are
many new words in each unit. If we draw each word, time is not
sufficient to teach them. (int. 14/5/1999)
As seen earlier, in the chapter it can be claimed that some of the teachers did not/could
not apply any of the action plans during my observations. The reasons for not applying
action plans were the exams to be set at school, holidays, the national curriculum, etc.
Although the teachers had these problems, they also applied action plans at other times
as much as possible. These teachers also stated positive views about the influences of
action plans.
In the first observation in 1999 of one teacher, T7 was teaching grammatical rules of
‘direct-indirect speech in English’, as had happened the previous year. For instance, the
following are some of the exercises written on the blackboard.
VERB + OBJECT + INFINITIVE
advise me
ask him
.................................................
VERB + TWO OBJECTS
introduce
offer

Chapter Eight 248
...................................................
VERB + INFINITIVE
agree
refuse
promise
..................................................... (diary, 13/5/1999, p.138)
The following picture shows how T7 tries to teach Grammar [English] in a lesson.
It seems, therefore, as already discussed above, that some of the teachers showed only
weak commitment to the action plans and continued to teach vocabulary using
traditional methods.
It seems that external researchers’ effort, support, guidance and t
he given materials for
the teachers may become meaningless unless participant teachers’ real commitment to
the research has been achieved.
However, although T7 did not implement any of the action plans in 1998 and 1999, it
came to my attention that he had much experience of language teaching. As will be seen
from the following extract his experiences implicitly support some of the action plans:
Drawing or showing pictures [in vocabulary teaching] is always
helpful... if pupils keep a tidy notebook, they can remember
pictures from their notebook and answer the questions in the
exams... if words are drawn on the board and supported by
‘sound’, pupils easily learn these words... Actions are certainly
important. For instance, I did a quiz and gave chocolate to pupils
who got 100 points from that quiz. I said we are eating our
chocolate now’... that is, actions have an effect on teaching,
especially in teaching positive and negative command
sentences.... [Note the word ‘I’ refers to T7].

Chapter Eight 249
PSS study should be continued, Recently I wrote an example
sentence to teach the word ‘conquer’, which translates as
‘fethetmek’ in Turkish. Istanbul was conquered by Fatih... The
word ‘conquer’ does not remain in pupils’ minds, why? because
its pronunciation is difficult. On the contrary, the words borrowed
by our [Turkish] language are easily pronounced by pupils.
(int. 14/5/1999)
T4 applied the action plans in 1998 and 1999 and revealed positive views about the
implications. This teacher [T4] used words that refer to PSS similarities between the
English and Turkish languages to implement the action plan in 1998. For instance,
“football, tennis, coffee, television, sandwich, cinema, supermarket, bank, pilot, captain,
etc.” (obs. 26/5/1998). His view about the action plans in 1998 was that:
The vocabularies in this list can be taught in every stage of
language teaching. I believe that this similarity (PSS) will be
useful. ...When I teach by acting, they (pupils) easily understand
the meaning of sentences... when words are taught by drawing,
the pupils in year 4 and 5 easily understand, write and pronounce
them ... At the very beginning of teaching English the use of
drawing becomes very useful, ... the old textbooks did not include
many pictures for the words in them such as vacuum cleaner,
washing machine, etc., but now new textbooks have pictures for
the sentences in the book. (int. 27/5/1998)
His classroom was observed twice on 5/5/1999 and 12/5/1999 and his ‘action plans’
were to teach words through ‘over repetition, mime and action [by acting]’. In the first
observation he used the words; “drink, like, want, hate, never, listen, usually, often...” to
implement the action plan (diary 5/5/1999, p. 116). In the second, the following words
were used while teaching the action plans; “ weather, sunny, cloudy, windy, rainy,
umbrella, snowy,...” (diary 12/5/1999, p. 133). He stated the following views in 1999:
They [action plans] really affected vocabulary teaching and
pupils understood them better. They [pupils] liked them as well.
Teaching through mime and gesture enabled them to talk.
Besides, doing these caught pupils’ attention as well. As these
caught the pupils’ attention, they happily listened to lessons...
( int. 12/5/1999)
8.4.2. Discussion
It is seen that some teachers [T4, T5 and T6] spent some time on action plans in 1998
and 1999, but others did not. Although T7 did not apply any of the action plans, his
experiences of language teaching implicitly support some of the action plans. For

Chapter Eight 250
instance, teaching English vocabulary through ‘drawing, demonstrations, actions and
PSS similarity’ is useful in his view. Besides this, T7 did not state any negative view
about AR and action plans. In four teachers' view the use of action plans had some
positive impact on their teaching of English words.
On the positive side, therefore, the use of action plans by teachers is an indication of
some degree of change that took place in their minds. This change mainly refers to a
modification in teachers’ understanding of language teaching. This change also refers to
the application of novel views of language teaching. Through this change teachers
stopped using their traditional ways of teaching some time in classrooms and they used
novel views that refer to the use of action plans. Here, the use of novel views also refers
to considering pupils' strengths and needs through AR- based language teaching.
There is some very slight evidence, therefore, that the teachers’ understanding of
language teaching has changed to some extent as a result of their participation in the
study, as revealed in their interview comments and my observations. However, it cannot
be known for certain if the change took place in the teachers’ minds because of
researcher effect. This is because an external researcher [me] observed the participant
teachers in the classrooms. Hence it is possible that teachers may have had the intention
of pleasing the external researcher. By and large, the influences of external researchers
on the research process and findings are not ignored and some researchers highlight this
point (Robson 1995), (Patton 1987).
The question still arises as to why my being present did not affect T7. This point implies
that a change took place, to some extent, in the other four teachers' mind about language
teaching. A further point is that we cannot claim that those four teachers’ understanding
of language teaching had changed significantly over the longer term. While I was able
to observe some small changes in their practice on a few occasions, we have no evidence
as to whether these changes were longer lasting.
The following points also need further attention. It was seen that exams, the national
curriculum, holidays, etc. were barriers to the use of action plans. Supposing that the
participant teachers’ understanding of language teaching changed positively because of
the notion of AR, then the questions of reducing the influence of the national curriculum
or teachers’ real involvement in an AR study remain unanswered.

Chapter Eight 251
The fact that the teachers generally stated positive views about the impacts of action
plans suggests that language teaching might become more successful if language
teachers explore pupils’ [language learners’] strengths and produce action plans
[learning strategies] according to learners’ needs. Once more, the question of involving
pupils in the planning lesson remains as an important issue. As seen in Chapter Three,
the MOE itself both identifies the names of topics to be taught and the methodology to
be used while teaching English.
Similarly, the teachers’ positive views about the influences of action plans also question
the current and pervasive method of language teaching in schools. It became clear from
the findings of Chapter 3 and the analysis of language teaching situations before the
initiation of this study [see 8.1.4.1. in Chapter 8] that the current system of language
teaching seemed to be teacher-centred or centrally controlled. There was some support
for creating more pupil-centred learning situations if we take into account teachers’
positive views of action plans.
The positive views of some of the teachers imply that, if other language teachers in
Turkey used action plans in their classrooms, it is highly possible that language teaching
in Turkey would improve. However, remembering the fact that the notion of AR is not
widely known in Turkey and that only a few people seem to be knowledgeable about it,
the question of introducing AR to all the other teachers in Turkey needs to be seriously
considered if we want to spread AR studies in Turkey.
Overall, although the participant teachers stated positive views about the impacts of
action plans, broadly speaking, the question of spreading AR studies to Turkey remains
unanswered.
8.5. Pupils’ Experiences of Action Plans (1998 & 1999)
Introduction
This part answers the third article of the 4th
research question. This article aimed to
explore consulted pupils’ views of action plans, and aims to contribute to the process
evaluation of the study. Implicit in it, pupils’ views of AR reveal how and why the use of
action plans affected the selected topic -vocabulary teaching. In representing pupils’
view special attention was paid to include an equal number of positive and negative
responses concerning action plans. Note that each teacher produced and used different

Chapter Eight 252
action plans in 1999. Hence it is assumed that including at least one example from each
teacher’s classroom would be useful to illustrate the influence of action plans
individually. It is also assumed that explaining pupils’ views of action plans under some
sub-headings would give us the opportunity to compare and triangulate their claims with
one another.
8.5.1. Pupils’ Views of Action Plans
8.5.1.1. Pupils’ Attitudes towards Drawing/Demonstration
T2, as mentioned, did not apply any of the action plans when she was observed in 1998.
So no further attempt was made to get pupils’ views from T2’s classroom in 1998. After
finishing the 2nd
cycle of SOAR in 1999, two pupils [EC and HY] were interviewed on
13/5/1999 to learn their views of action plans. In EC’s view, “if words are shown as
pictures, [pupils] can learn them well”. When he was asked to give examples of these
words, the answer was that “ I remember the pictures showing a person’s angry face,
happy face, etc.”. The other pupil [HY] states that, “ if I see words as pictures, they
help me to learn their meaning...”.
T7 was another participant who did not use action plans in 1998 and 1999. However,
some pupils from his classroom were interviewed to find out about their experience of
vocabulary learning. T7’s interest was to know how the pupils who were in prep classes
in 1998 learned new words in 1999. To that end five pupils were interviewed in May
1999. One pupil [OK] stated the following views about drawing and its influence:
As my friend said we used to learn by drawing last year, when
we do not remember the meanings of words, we remember the
pictures we drew in our notebook”. She gave examples of
words learnt through drawing such as "witch, tea time,
balloon, poster. (int, 6/5/1999)
The above mentioned view influenced me very much and I was desperate to see one of
the vocabulary notebooks kept by prep pupils. I asked [OK] if she could bring in her
notebook for me (int. 6/5/1999). After seeing her vocabulary notebook on 13/5/1999 and
taking several photographs of it, I began to realise that the pupils in prep classes keep a
vocabulary notebook. The following picture indicates how pupils kept vocabulary
notebooks and learned the meaning of English words by drawing pictures.

Chapter Eight 253
8.5.1.2. Pupils’ Attitudes towards PSS Similarity
As stated in the previous section T7 did not use action plans and taught the topic ‘direct
and indirect speech’ in English during my classroom observation on 14/5/1998.
However, three pupils from his classroom were interviewed to get more information
about the potential use of action plans. Since all stated similar ideas, only one of them is
provided here.
ET: can I have your name please?
S: Bilge,
ET: can you guess the meaning of words which you saw for the
first time?
Bilge: ekonomik, ekonomist, ekosistem, editor, elektrik, element,
ambargo, embriyo, elektronik, enerji,
ET: well, why can you guess these words?
Bilge: because they were borrowed by Turkish and they are
similar to Turkish.
ET: Thank you. (int. 13/5/1998).
T4, serving in a primary education school, also used PSS similarity and demonstration as
action plans during my observation in 1998. The following brief extract indicates why
action plans were useful for pupils.
..................................................
T4: now I will use the words in the reading text. Apart from this one I
will use PSS similarity as well and I will test which words you
understand better.
T4: Ali is playing football in the garden.
Ali is playing basketball in the garden.
Ali is playing tennis in the garden.

Chapter Eight 254
T4: how do you understand the words ‘football, basketball, tennis’ as
opposed to other words?
Pupils: (altogether) easy, easy, we understand them easily.
T4: Why do you understand them easily?
Pupils: (altogether) they are similar to Turkish words, their
pronunciation is easy.............. ( obs. 26/5/1998).
Similarly, further evidence about the influence of PSS similarity came from T5’s
classroom in 1998. Seven pupils from her classroom were interviewed during a break
and all of them stated the same views [positive] about the influence of the action plans.
The following is one of those positive views:
ET: What is your name?
S: Eda,
ET: Can you guess the Turkish meanings of these words, but
don’t tell the words you already know,
Eda: barometre, basketbol, bingo, ... bravo,... Budizm, beyzbol,
ET: OK, how did you guess their meaning? what helped you?
Eda: These (words) are a bit Turkish.
ET: Thank you. ( int. 13/5/1998).
Further evidence about the influence of PSS similarity came from T6’s classroom. Seven
pupils interviewed in 1998 stated positive views about the influence of action plan
[PSS]. I was not able to interview any pupil after the second observation.
8.5.1.3. Pupils Attitudes towards Interaction and Association
T4’s action plans aimed to teach the new words through ‘repetition, mime and gesture’
in 1999. Ten pupils were interviewed from his classroom during a break, in 1999. Nine
of the pupils stated positive views about the influence of action plans.
One of the positive views from T4’ pupils’ suggested that the use of action plans
influenced pupils’ learning and classroom interaction.
Student: teacher, me, me.
ET: your name?
S: Tayfur Gursu.
.................................................
ET: In the classroom the teacher teaches lessons, how must he
teach?
TG: If he teaches as he explained just before, if he shows by
action, words are easily understood.
ET: But everybody was laughing, they see this as fun, why is it
then?
TG: It seems funny,

Chapter Eight 255
ET: Pardon me,
TG: This way of teaching is funny, the teacher has not done it
like this before, he has taught like this for the first time,
ET: OK, how do you find this way of teaching,
TG: it is better,
ET: OK, thank you. ( int. 5/5/1999)
The influence of ‘association’ was tested by T5 in her classroom in 1999. The aim of
this action plan was to teach new words by creating associations. Two of the interviewee
pupils talked about language teaching in general and five of the pupils stated positive
views about action plans. The following extract indicates one pupil’s views about
‘teaching new words through the use of PSS similarity and associations’.
ET: another pupil?
S: me, me,
ET: what is your name?
S: Murat Cicek,
ET: Murat, how do you learn the meaning of new words?
M: first, by looking at the dictionary and repeating regularly,
ET: how do you understand better if....
M: ... if teachers teach the similar words between English and Turkish,
ET: yes,
M: besides, teaching through games,
ET: well, to liken one word to another,
M: since one word resembles to another one, a relationship happens in
between, in this case I learn well.
ET: can you give an example,
M: cool and cold,
ET: apart from this one, this just happened in the previous lesson,
M: riche and rich [ Riche is a cartoon on the TV in Turkey],
ET: apart from this one, in very general,
M: the word ‘car’ is pronounced as /kar/ and it means [araba] in
Turkish. So I resemble the phonetic /kar/ to the Turkish word ‘kar’ which
means ‘snow’ in English.
ET: okay, thank you. (int. 13/5/1999)
8.5.2. Discussion
Overall, five to ten pupils were interviewed from each teacher’s classroom to explore
their experience of action plans in 1998 and 1999. Out of 44 pupils interviewed, 41 of
them stated that the use of action plans in 1998 and 1999 had been useful for learning
the meaning of new words. It seems that the use of action plans in three types of schools
[the cases] had generally achieved its objectives.

Chapter Eight 256
The overall implication of the pupils’ views is that the use of action plans positively
influenced the vocabulary teaching. However, the implications of the pupils’ views are
not limited to the above stated general finding. One of the implications is that if pupils’
views are consulted about how to teach and what to teach, etc. the outcome of the
language teaching usually becomes more successful. This view is rooted in the literature
of AR. It was seen in Chapter 6 that the data about the focus of the SOAR study was
collected from pupils and teachers. To that end teachers proposed 70 suggestions and
pupils proposed 49 suggestions in total. After analysing the collected data and finding
the most common patterns, the action plans were produced and used by teachers. The
application of action plans involved consulting pupils’ views and addressing pupils’
needs. The overall implication is that if teachers consult their learners and learn their
needs, language teaching is likely to become most successful.
Language-teaching sessions may therefore tend to produce more successful results if a
‘bottom-up’ approach is used, which involves consulting learners and learning their
needs. The bottom-up approach is both a research approach and a feature of AR. The
core of this approach is that teachers or researchers do not impose something on learners.
Or they do not initiate the study or research with a pre-decided agenda. All this suggests
that the procedures and methods of language teaching sessions must be based on
learners’ needs.
The above noted points about consulting learners and addressing learners’ needs were
also discussed and analysed in Chapter 5, in the account of relationships between
English language teaching and AR theories. To this end the theories of AR and language
teaching were critically scrutinised and some common points of AR and language
teaching theories were explored. As a result, I proposed some principles that reconcile
AR and language teaching theories. For instance, one of these principles is that AR-
based language teaching always consults learners. According to another principle, AR-
based language teaching always addresses learners’ needs. The reflectiveness and
articulateness of the pupils suggests empirical support for these principles.
Although the previous claim states the use of the qualitative approach to language
teaching, the question arises as to how to combine the views in the literature with the
personal needs. In other words, can one consider the views in the literature while
undertaking an AR study? In our case, do teachers need to consider the views about

Chapter Eight 257
‘vocabulary teaching’ in the literature while undertaking an AR study? One can say ‘yes’
to this question and give examples from the literature as follows. For instance, Brumfit
et al. (1991) provide some articles about how to teach English to children. Among these
views, ‘topic-centred learning, activity-based learning’ (Holderness (1991), the use of
‘fun and games’ (Rixon 1991) are only a few of the examples.
Similarly, one can also explore views about vocabulary teaching in the literature. For
instance, vocabulary must be taught in the context in Wallace’s (1987) view. According
to Allen (1983) the use of pictures, explanations in the mother tongue and definitions in
simple English are the ways that must be used at the beginning stage. Briefly, one can
find hundreds of views in the literature and most of these views are theoretical. Then the
question arises as to how far these theoretical views can be useful in my [our] study.
In the same way, one can also use or explore the views suggested by the educational
institutions such as the MOE, universities, and educational faculties. For instance, it is
seen in Chapter Three that the MOE in Turkey suggests that ‘the DM’ be used while
teaching English. Also Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) suggests
ideas about how to teach vocabulary in key stage 1, key stage 2, etc. Overall, the
broadest question is, what must the teachers who teach pupils do when faced by all those
different theoretical propositions while teaching vocabulary?
The above noted question seems to be difficult to answer. However, if teachers
sufficiently know the literature of AR, they can easily sort their problems out. That is,
those who know the literature of AR know the necessity of relating to their learners
individually. This also means that teachers must know not only individual differences,
but also the weaknesses and strengths of the individual learner. In this way teachers can
explore each learner’s learning strategy. For instance, a pupil in this study [Fatma] says
that ‘interesting and short words’ are easy to learn for her (int 1/5/1998). For another
pupil [Guray] ‘long words, newly learnt words, words having more than one meaning,
homophones and less used ones’ are difficult to learn for him (int. 1/5/1998).
Briefly, the literature of vocabulary teaching may pose many views about teaching
pupils, but if teachers /researchers know the literature and features of AR, then they can
explore each learner’s learning strategy and produce/use action plans in line with the
learners’ strengths. What this suggests is that language teachers must learn/explore their
learners’ strengths and needs rather than get bogged down in the literature. I briefly

Chapter Eight 258
stated this view as follows: AR-based language teaching does not rely upon prescriptive
rules [see 5.5.4. in Chapter 5].
Consequently, it is seen that pupils stated positive views about the influence of action
plans. On the positive side, this must not be seen as a surprise because the action plans
were produced according to those pupils’ needs and strengths. It is also seen that
knowing pupils individually and learning their vocabulary learning strategies are
important. In addition, it is seen that the views about vocabulary teaching in the
literature may not be very useful for pupils. This suggests that pupils’ choices must be
prioritised, but it is known from Chapter 3 that not only the education system of Turkey,
but also the English textbooks, the contents and methodology of those books are
centrally controlled. So the question of prioritising the pupils’ needs and choices remains
as a big question to be answered in further studies.
On the negative side, one can claim that only one third of the observed pupils were
interviewed each year to learn about their views of action plans. Hence most of the
pupils’ views were not elicited because of time constraint. So pupils’ positive views can
not be taken as strong claims.
8.6. Teachers’ Overall Views of AR on English Language Teaching
Introduction
The aim of the fourth article of the 4th
research question was to evaluate the general
outcome of this AR study. In this sense, the aim here can be considered as product
evaluation of the study. The questions about ‘general impacts of AR on English
language teaching’ were asked of the participant teachers because they were primarily
responsible for teaching English in classrooms. That is why, only teachers’ overall views
of AR on English language teaching are included in this section. The following part first
reveals teachers' views from extracts. It then offers a discussion of the data.
8.6.1. Teachers’ Overall Views of Action Research
One of the teachers' general attitudes towards AR was positive, but the implementation
of the AR depended on having certain conditions. So her overall view about the
influence of AR on English language teaching was:

Chapter Eight 259
If we can apply this information, it is fine, but in order to apply
this information certain things need to be available”. She
maintained that “ for instance, I plan to use an AR study in a
Prep. Class next year, firstly I will identify a problem and make a
study of it. I will try to get a different result while teaching a unit
of the textbook. (T2, 29/5/1998 int.)
She answered my question about the influence of AR and her understanding of teaching
during the final interview on 14/5/1999 positively and maintained that “ I will always
follow this structure, in the past I used to teach in a easy way. That is, I only used to
write new words to the board and do nothing about them... hmm now I use this sort of
teaching”.
Besides this, two of the participants stated similar views not only about AR, but also
about action plans. For instance, in one view “this study has been useful for us
[teachers], ... especially PSS similarity. Collaboration with other friends has been useful,
we benefited from their views, they benefited from our views...” (T4, 27/5/1998 int).
Likewise, another teacher (T5) stated similar views about the overall outcome of AR: "of
course, the exchange of ideas has been very useful”. She maintained that, "coming
together with other colleagues was nice, I used action plans in vocabulary teaching. In
general this study enriched our points of view” (int. 27/5/1998). She also stated the
influence of this AR on English language teaching by saying “Ooo, it affected, this [AR]
also facilitates teaching and teachers do not have much problem while using it”. In her
example, “ using this similarity between English and Turkish helps very much and
teaching vocabulary through associations can be used as well” (int. 13/5/1999).
One teacher (T6) repeated her previous answer while answering questions about
‘definition, objective and stages of AR’, rather than answering my question. She began
by saying “useful” and maintained that “ as I said, AR is a study which takes [someone
or something] from an unsuccessful to a successful situation". She stated the following
view about AR in 1999; “the study became useful, we tried different things, we learnt
different things...” (int. 14/5/1999). As noted at the outset of this chapter T6 prefers
talking very little, a few words, or a few sentences. Since T7 did not implement any of
the action plans in 1998 and 1999, no more data was available about his general views of
AR on English language teaching.

Chapter Eight 260
As a result, according to four teachers’ claims, the use of AR made some positive
influence on their English language teaching. This also suggests that these teachers’
understanding of language [English] teaching changed to some extent, although I have
already noted above that it is not possible to demonstrate lasting or significant change in
a study such as this.
8.6.2. Discussion
It seems that one of the teachers saw a difficulty in applying AR and teaching English at
the same time. That’s why her answer contained a conditional response. Although the
other four teachers did not give any conditional response, this also means that T2's
understanding of AR is different from that of others. We can pose this claim for the
following reason. Since T2 seemed to have more understanding of AR, it is possible that
T2 may have seen some problematic relation between the implementation of AR and
contextual conditions. As a result, it can be argued that t
he more understanding of AR
the teachers have, the more diagnostic observations they can pose about the influences of
AR study.
In teachers’ views collaboration and benefiting from colleagues’ language teaching
experiences were useful for them. However, it is known that the participant teachers and
I came together only once in 1998 to select the focus of study. Besides this, several small
meetings were held with these teachers in 1999 to theoretically introduce the notion of
AR to teachers.
What this suggests is that if more meetings were held with the teachers, it is possible that
the teachers would gain more understanding of AR. It also means that the teachers could
have benefited from their colleagues’ experience more or they could have reflected more
about AR if more collaborative meetings were held. Since only a few meetings were
held with the participant teachers in 3 years’ time, it could be argued that more changes
and reflection about AR and its influences would not take place in the teachers’ mind. It
should also be recalled that other evidence from the interviews and observations
suggested that teachers’ commitment was in general rather weak. Therefore, while
teachers may express broad general approval, this does not in itself guarantee
commitment in practice.

Chapter Eight 261
In addition, the question arises as to whether or not teachers can gain much awareness
and understanding of AR with little experience. That is, the teachers used action plans
only a few times, yet claimed that the overall of impact of AR affected their
understanding of language teaching. This may partly be the result of positive responses
from pupils, who stated positive views about the impact of action plans [see 8.5.].
8.7. Head Teachers’ Views of Action Research
Introduction
This part aims to answer the fifth article of the 4th
research question. This article aimed
to discover three head teachers’ views of AR, and contributes to the overall evaluation of
the study. To that end the head teachers of the schools in which this SOAR was
undertaken were interviewed after finishing the implementation of the 2nd
cycle of study
in 1999. It was anticipated that the exploration of head-teachers’ views would give some
ideas about the impacts of AR in the research context. Among the three head teachers
only one seemed to have an interest in learning about the influence of this study.
8.7.1. Head teachers’ views from the extracts
The head-teacher [CZ] runs a language-based high school in Ordu20
. He preferred sitting
in a deputy head teacher’s room during t
he interview (int.12/5/1999) and answered my
questions not only about his views of AR or action plans, but also about numbers of
pupils and teachers in his school, school improvement, teachers’ freedom of speech,
freedom of thought among others. He sometimes looked at the evaluation report I gave
to the head teachers in 1998 while answering my questions. His views were:
This study has been undertaken for three years and this sort of
academic study pleased us. If we could help this study, we would
feel happy. According to the findings.... these findings can be
helpful to other schools all over Turkey. This study was useful…,
we are ready to help other studies, we must help such academic
studies. (int. 12/5/1999)
The head-teacher [BA], running a primary school in Ordu, seemed to be very interested
in the study. He arranged a meeting on 26/4/1999 in his room and wanted to have some
information about what I did and what I found after implementing the 1st
cycle of
research in 1998. This meeting took place before proceeding with the 2nd
cycle of the
20
Ordu is a city, located in the north of Turkey. The mentioned schools are in the city centre.

Chapter Eight 262
study when I went back to Turkey in 1999. The following diary note indicates how I felt
about this head teacher.
When the bell rang, T4 went to his classroom. Meanwhile I
wanted to see the head teacher to give him a copy of the
permission letter to enter classrooms and the evaluation report of
last year’s study. He offered tea and welcomed me in a friendly
way. After this offer he stated that I’m happy with your study, I
believe that your study will be helpful to English language
teaching. He wanted me to explain some parts of the evaluation
report that were written in English. From 10:00am to 12:30pm I
explained the report page by page. During this explanation I felt
that he was really interested in my study. I also realised from his
facial expression and gestures that he was happy with my
explanation. (diary 26/4/1999, p. 103)
This head-teacher also answered questions about AR, language teaching, the
examination systems at school, teachers’ freedom of speech, etc. when he was
interviewed in 1999:
First of all I congratulate you, you carried out this study with a
plan and programme. You came to schools regularly. You had
good dialogue with teachers and listened to lessons. This study
has been useful for our teachers and pupils. You taught here
[Ordu] what you saw and learnt there [England]. ... Both
teachers and pupils are happy with these applications. For
instance, teachers started doing ‘mimes and actions’ to be able to
teach better. They tried to teach through role-play or games.
Teaching by acting and ... caught pupils’ attention. Besides, when
pupils see words through pictures, they understand well, but
teaching through actions, or by acting has become more useful.
Finally, similarity as well. Pupils like PSS similarity very much.
... I heard that pupils learnt well. (int. 13/5/1999)
It appears, therefore, that this teacher had some direct knowledge of what the teachers
had been attempting to do, and some understanding of the area of the study.
The other head teacher [SK] runs a vocational and technical high school in Ordu.
Although my questions were about AR, action plans, etc., he talked about problems of
language teaching and the education system of Turkey in general. He stated that he had
not talked to any language teacher about this study and revealed the following views:
Language teaching has its own difficulties, I do not think we can
eliminate these... to teach a foreign language it is necessary to go
to that country. Teaching foreign languages here [Turkey]

Chapter Eight 263
resembles teaching swimming on a football field, ... language
teaching is not related to intelligence or IQ , if pupils have
interest and motivation, they learn. There is no need to discuss
methods, or in vocabulary teaching, you can get good results by
acting or teaching actively in one case or you can get a good
outcome by reading in another case…. (int. 13/5/1999)
As this head teacher talked about language teaching in general rather than answering my
questions, I listened to him patiently until he finished his speech.
8.7.2. Discussion
It seemed that one of the head teachers had not talked to the language teachers about this
study. CZ stated positive views about this study, but he did not mention ‘why and how’
this study had been useful. Similarly, he did not mention which action plans were used
or which action plans were more useful. By contrast, BA stated that the use of games,
role-play, pictures among others had been useful while teaching vocabulary.
To use a metaphor, the participant teachers were “one step away” from the study. The
head teachers must then be two-steps away from the study because they were not
actively involved in the study. Although the head teachers were two-steps away from the
study, compared to the participant teachers, the evidence indicates that one of the head
teachers had more interest in learning about the influences of AR. It was possible for the
other head teachers to have more information about the study; either from me or from
the participant teachers in their schools. This indicates that there seems to be a
relationship between interest and having information about the study.
In this context it must be noted that none of the head teachers came to classrooms to
observe the influences of action plans although they have legal authority to enter
classrooms as a listener and have the right to ask questions about that day's topic to
teachers. Meanwhile, it must be noted that head teachers' view of AR do not reflect their
actual observations in classrooms. That is, head teachers' views of AR reflect what the
others [me and the teachers] told them.
The use of second-hand sources, as head teachers did, raises an important issue about the
validity of second-hand information or evidence in academic studies. It is common
knowledge that some ways of validating the evidences are cross-checking (Yin 1989),
triangulating (Elliott 1991), looking for patterns (Altrichter et al 1993) etc. Yet

Chapter Eight 264
researchers must be more careful and open-minded while posing general statements
about the overall outcome of the study if they use second-hand information about the
study. This also questions the design of AR studies.
The AR studies, according to researchers’ designs, are classified as FOAR and SOAR
(Elliott 1991) (Hollingsworth 1997). Since the major tasks about collecting and
analysing data and producing reports are the responsibility of the participant teachers
rather than project directors as happened in the FTP and HCP projects, the use of second
hand information also questions the general findings of the SOAR . Consequently,
although two of the head teachers [CZ and BA] stressed the importance of research and
their happiness with the study, the head teachers were two steps away from the study.
8.8. The LEA’s Views of Action Research.
Introduction
This part aims to answer the sixth article of the 4th research question. This article aimed
to find out the local educational authority’s view of AR, and contributes to the overall
evaluation of the study. The LEA consists of one manager and several deputy managers.
Only one of the deputy managers is responsible for education and training activities.
Others’ responsibilities, for instance, are appointment of teachers, arranging social and
cultural activities, etc. The deputy manager dealing with education and training activities
was [IO]21
when the FFW was conducted in Turkey in April 1997. The deputy manager
[IO]22
was in charge of educational activities in November 1997. After finishing the 2nd
cycle of SOAR in May in 1999, the deputy head teacher dealing with educational
activities was [HC]. Hence this deputy manager was interviewed on 14/5/1999. His
views about AR and my study are:
8.8.1. The Deputy Manager’s View of AR
You [me] transferred the knowledge and experience here that you
had in Britain. First of all, thank you. You had good
communication with teachers, you listened to lessons by entering
the classroom. You did a study by seeing and listening. Drawing
and demonstrating helped you to your study. That is, showing
objects actually is effective in language teaching. Besides, we
heard that demonstrating and drawing are more effective in year
four and five. If words are taught by acting, this is more effective.
21
The name of this deputy head is Ibrahim Ozyurt.
22
The name of this deputy head is Ismet Ozturk.

Chapter Eight 265
He went on reading the evaluation reports I gave to him. however,
application of this study depends on solving some problems.
These are double session teaching, crowded classroom, etc.
( int. 14/5/1999)
8.8.2. Discussion
The LEA is aware that an AR study was undertaken in some schools in Ordu because
they were consulted twice in 1997 and 1999 to get permission to enter classrooms as an
observer. However, none of the deputy managers or any other staff from the LEA came
to schools to observe the lessons and to have first hand information. Instead, they were
informed with a written report that was given to them after finishing the 1st cycle and
the overall implication of the 2nd cycle was given orally.
The above noted deputy manager [HC] answered interview questions relying on the
evaluation report given to him. In other words, his views of AR reflect what was already
told him. In this sense the LEA’s of AR reflects not their own observation and findings,
but others’ views and observation. If we carry on giving the example from the metaphor,
the LEA was three-steps-away from the study, compared to the teachers.
This brings us to the question of, as noted in 8.7., relying on others’ views and
observation in any academic study. This also brings to us the question of producing
some general statements or hypothesis about the outcome of the study. Consequently, it
is difficult to state strong claims about the LEA's views of AR study although the deputy
manager stated some positive views about the influences of AR. This is because the
LEA was three-steps away from the study and the views stated by t
he deputy manager
reflected other researcher’s observations and views.
8.9. The Conceptualisation of Barriers Arising During the Study
Introduction
This part aims to answer the 5th
research question.
Its overall aim is to introduce the obstacles that emerged during the implementation of
the AR study from 1997 to 1999 and to explore the reasons behind those obstacles. In
this sense, this part reflects contextual barriers to the study. For instance, it was seen in
Chapter 7 that teachers pay attention to other potential participant teachers’ life style,

Chapter Eight 266
belief, etc. before making a decision about joining in a study. These problems went on
emerging during the second field work in 1997 and while actually conducting the study
in schools in 1998 and 1999. After coding data and putting the coded data into
categories, it became clear that the barriers to the implementation of AR derive from two
main sources in Turkey. I have called these sources teacher-based reasons (TBR) and
school-based reasons (SBR) respectively.
However, the names of the barriers were kept as interim until they were agreed with the
teachers. Hence, all of the participant teachers were consulted to have their agreement
(Smith 1996) before carrying on with the 2nd
cycle in 1999. For that purpose each
teacher was interviewed individually by asking “ how do you view this analysis”, (int.
18/3/1999), “ if you agree, I will use them” (int. 26/3/1999), “are these really barriers
to the study” ( int. 19/3/1999), etc. Negotiation with the teachers had two aims: a) to get
the teachers’ agreement on interim data analysis and b) to finalise the names of the
categories.
Having achieved teachers’ agreement on interim data analysis and verifying the names
of the categories at the beginning of the 2nd
cycle of AR in 1999, further questions were
asked about the TBR and SBR while interviewing teachers. The following section
explains the analysis of the TBR and SBR respectively.
8.9.1. Teacher-Based Reasons
Introduction
This part introduces the TBR by splitting them into groups. In doing so, this part first
presents the evidence about the common barriers stated by several teachers. However,
data indicates that nearly each teacher highlighted a different aspect of the TBR. Hence
it seems necessary to reveal [include] every teacher's views individually. This is because
exploring these problematic barriers here might be useful for those who want to
undertake further AR studies in the research context.
8.9.1.1. Types of Barriers
a) Social Reasons
The problems included in this group derive from not having social relations among the
participant teachers. If coming together, chatting and visiting friends or relatives, etc. are

Chapter Eight 267
examples of social relations, it seemed that some of the volunteer teachers had
reservations about coming together with other volunteer teachers. Some examples of
problematic social relations were already explained under the heading 'Selection of
Participants' in Chapter 7. In that example it appeared that one of the participant teachers
[T6] had no or few social relationships [greeting, talking, coming together, etc.] with T7
(diary 12/3/1998) and T3 (diary 9/4/1998). It may be worth noting here that T6 and T7
teach in the same school and T3 and T6 are sisters-in-law.
Another example of social relations among teachers was given by T3. This issue became
clear thus; I used to talk to teachers on the way to the Staff Room or during breaks. In
such a conversation T3 stated that "there is no communication, exchange of knowledge
or experience among the language teachers in this school" (SFW, 9/12/1997). The other
teachers in that school are [YS] and T2. YS was interviewed once in 1996 while
undertaking my master’s study and T2 was involved in this study.
b) Envy of Success
T7 provided the following example while I was explaining the importance of
collaboration and change in AR studies. T7 first talked about why teachers had to follow
the national curriculum and stated that " there is a competition or a hidden power
struggle among the teachers [in this school]. The aim of this sort of effort implies that
‘I’m better than you are, I teach better than you do, etc.’. Some teachers regard others
as poor teachers, (....) there is backbiting among.... teachers”. T7 provided the
following example to illustrate the backbiting. “ there was a very successful ... teacher
(NK) in this school last year. Other... teachers envied her success and these envious
teachers collaborated with some pupils’ parents by giving them wrong information.
Eventually this teacher (NK) left the school last year and now she teaches in a private
school” (SFW, 8/12/1997).
c) Personal Reasons (Choices)
The reasons explained under this heading can also be split into various sub-groups, but
providing a general view about each teacher's personal reasons to join or not to join in
any research project may be more useful. For instance, one of the teachers suggests the
personal reasons by saying, "I think we are more prejudiced" and “its reason may come
from the past”. However, she thinks that “the way of life, beliefs, traditions, etc.” are
not causes of prejudices (T2, 25/3/1999 int).

Chapter Eight 268
Another participant explains his personal reasons as follows:
First of all, I consider what is being done, then if it agrees with
my views, if it useful for me, suppose that it may be a social event,
but I may not like it. He further expressed that likes, dislikes affect
my decision. If the activity is useful to the society or if it addresses
all members of the society or specific people, these are my
reasons for being selective. He finally stated that if the activity is
related to money, I must think about it. (T4, 26/3/1999 int)
The above-noted extract indicates that ‘shared understanding, the benefit of the study to
the society, likes and dislikes and monetary sides’ of the research and activities affects
this teacher's decision making.
Although this teacher (T4) was not eager to talk about the TBR in 1998, further
questions were put to him during the final interview in 1999. The summary of his answer
indicates that "getting on well and having good relations" with people depended on
having ‘shared views’ (int. T4 12/5/1999). In his view, ‘the shared views' refers to
"sharing social, political, religious views and life style”. He repeats this by saying,
"coming together is easy if thoughts are shared by others”. However, it seemed that this
teacher did not ignore daily social relations with other teachers such as greeting
colleagues, asking after the others’ family, etc.
The other teacher (T5) explains her personal reasons while joining in a research project
or a social activity as follows: " if there is a common interest,… if participants are like-
minded, I would join”. In her view, like-mindedness refers to participants’ life styles.
Moreover, she counts the further reasons as follows:
I may find some of them [potential participants] closer to me,
maybe because of age I choose them, ... I pay attention to their
appearance and understanding, their understanding of events.
She replied to the further question ‘do you mean their
understanding of life?’ by saying ha, yes. ( int. 19/3/1999)
It can be summarised that ‘common interests, like-mindedness, age, facial appearance,
understanding of events and life style’ of the participants are important while making a
decision about joining a research or social activity for this research.
Other examples of personal reasons are potential participants and the selected topic (T6,
19/3/1999 int.). In this view, the topic must be educational and useful. According to this

Chapter Eight 269
view, " cultural differences, social differences and the level of culture” are some of the
reasons for being selective. In her view, social differences’ refers to "the level of
education [of participants]” (T6, 19/3/1999 int.). In brief, the topic that would be
selected and potential participants would determine whether T6 joined in a study or not.
The final participant [T7] gave the following examples about personal reasons:
If you come to me every day and say to me ‘can we study this
topic?’, I say that this study depends on a) having free times at
school, is it not true, because my first task is to do things related
to the school, b) my being a volunteer,... c) having a good
relationship with you [me]. He further explained what he meant
by ‘having a good dialogue’ as follows; my relation with you
[me] and my relations with participants. That is, I do not want to
study with someone whom I do not like. (int. 24/3/1999)
In his view, some of the personal reasons derive from ‘prejudices’ and he explains this
point by giving following examples:
As a society, we give priority to prejudices; we are a prejudiced
society.... for instance, ... when we meet a person for the first time,
we feel a sympathy for them although we have no relation
previously. On the contrary, we meet some people for the first
time, but we feel an antipathy for them .... our feelings in our
hearts do not match with these people, I like them or I do not like
them. (int. 24/3/1999).
In this view, “tradition, custom, beliefs, personal views, cultural structures, for instance,
a man wearing an earring, ... a man with long hair… etc” are the reasons for being
prejudiced. In this context he verified my prompt ‘... if there is no common point, there
is no co-operation and study’ by saying “yes”. He went on to say, “You do not like
others because of their hair style, eyebrows, or you associate that person with someone
you don’t like”. It can be stated that ‘having free time, being a volunteer, having good
relations with teachers and researcher and prejudice [about tradition, beliefs, cultural
structure, personal appearance, etc.]’ are personal reasons for or not joining in a study.
d) Other Reasons
Finally teachers’ illness and unexpected events [death] can be included in TBRs. T1
withdrew from the study because of her illness (diary, 31/3/1998). T1’s illness was not
the only event that delayed my observations or interviews. Other teachers’ short-term
illness or bereavement also caused the delay of the study from time to time. For

Chapter Eight 270
example, I postponed my classroom observation three times because of teachers’ [T1,
T2, T3] illness and once because of T5’ father in law’s death during the SFW.
In general, TBRs can be summarised as follows;
- Having good social relationships, - Facial appearance,
- Envy of success, - Understanding of events,
- Addressing needs, - Life style of participants,
- Usefulness to the study, - The topic to be studied,
- Likes and dislikes, - Social differences,
- Money [cost of event or activity], - Participants’ education level,
- Shared understanding, - Having free times,
- Like-minded participants, - Being a volunteer,
- The age of participants, - Having good relations with the
- Tradition, custom, researcher and participants.
- Unexpected events [illness, death].
8.9.1.2. Possible Solutions to the TBR
I asked further questions of teachers about eliminating these barriers. T2 answered my
question ‘can we sort personal problems out? by saying “No, I do not think we can
intervene in those” and maintained that “I think there is nothing we can do about this
issue” (T2, 25/3/1999 int.). Another teacher [T4] answered the question - how can this
be sorted out? by saying, “these sorts of things happen in our society”. His first reply
was “I do not know, everybody has his/her own way of life” but he continued by saying
that this is natural and it is in our selves” (int. 26/3/1999). According to T7 the
solutions of TBRs depend on “incentives, teachers’ characters, personality and control
of teachers” (int. 24/3/1999). Briefly, it was seen that none of the teachers felt that the
solution of the TBR was possible. The following part discusses various aspects of the
TBR.
8.9.1.3. Discussion
It should be noted that I did not call the TBR ‘problems’. This is because some teachers
call, for instance, ‘level of education’ a barrier to the study, but this is not stated as being
barrier by the other participants. I believe that each teacher’s understanding is subjective
and relative.
Although only five teachers were involved in the study, the above noted findings suggest
that cultural, social and personal elements of the research context need to be explored

Chapter Eight 271
with some larger-scale research projects in order to find more conclusive results. This
was beyond the scope of this study because of support and time limitation of this study.
The above noted affective elements suggest that each teacher’s personal choices need to
be considered if action researchers want to maximise the outcome of the study. It also
appears that the question of solving the clashing needs of the participant teachers
remains unanswered. This further suggests that each participant teacher’s needs should
be addressed before actually initiating the AR study.
In fact, it is not possible to ignore the participant teachers’ demands or various values
although they may be considered as subjective. For instance, I believe that each person -
no matter whether they are teacher, or head teachers, nurses etc.- has the right to choose
his/her life style, friend group, beliefs, likes, dislikes, etc. I also believe that no person
has the right to blame, degrade, causes pain to, tease out, etc. others because of their life
style, likes, dislikes.
For instance, it is not possible to say that T2’s or T4’s, etc. personal reasons are wrong
or unacceptable. On the other hand, stating such a view about one’s life style, belief, etc.
could be a rude behaviour. Instead, researchers can pinpoint TBRs by asking further
question and taking the side of interviewees. In general, it seems that the TBRs seem to
be a “hot” issue and that researchers need to be careful while investigating the TBRs and
asking questions about them. These individual and personal issues tend to receive
relatively little attention in the literature on AR.
Consequently, I have no intention at this point to say the views of teacher X are better
than those of teacher Y. In Chapter 4 we read that AR embodies the features of
democracy. So we have no right to intervene in others’ life or belief system in a
democratic study. However, further community AR studies can be undertaken to
investigate the possible ways of enabling people to overcome personal reasons [TBRs.].
8.9.2 School-Based Reasons (SBR)
Introduction
Although the TBR are created by teachers' themselves, it seems that the SBR usually
occur outside the control of participant teachers. This part first introduces the SBR by

Chapter Eight 272
splitting them into sub-groups. It then discusses the data. The conceptualisation of the
SBR according to teachers, head teachers and the LEA were as follows:
8.9.2.1. Types of Barriers
a) Lack of Free Time
Some teachers complained about the lack of free time in 1998 and 1999. For instance,
one teacher (T2) states the following view about it:
There was not any difficulty, but I could not spend more time for
the study, ... if we spent more time, it would be better, I teach two
hours [80 minute] without having a break, then it is not possible
to look at these materials during breaks, time is not sufficient.
(int. 29/5/1998)
Another teacher’s (T5) immediate answer about the general difficulty of the study was
that “heh, in my opinion, time was not sufficient. If time were sufficient, we would study
another topic. We studied vocabulary teaching, did we not?" (int. 27/5/1998). This
teacher accepts lack of time, but her further view raises the question about the length of
AR studies. For instance, some AR studies were finished in one week (Sanger 1989),
(Elliott 1989). Yet Elliott (1991) states that AR studies should continue for about 3
years. This teacher accepts the SBR as barriers to the study by saying,“heh, for instance,
work load, if we had more free time, we would spend more time on this research”(int.
26/3/1999). However, the former teacher (T2) reveals that teachers have some free time
at school, but she also confesses that "we cannot use the time properly, ...I have some
free time in the morning, but I have a child. I must spend that time with the child” (int.
25/3/1999).
b) Double Session Teaching (DST)
It was seen in Chapter 3 [see p.28] that some schools in Turkey are on double session
programme. In this case, for instance, the pupils in years 1, 2, 3, etc. come to school in
the morning. Their lessons start between 7:00 and 8:00am and finish around 12:00am.
The lessons of the other pupils in year 4, 5, etc. start around 12:00am. -1:00pm and
finish around 5:00pm. Some teachers raised the following complaints about this as
follows. For instance, T5 said "the other problem is double session teaching, coming to
school in the morning and afternoon…" (T5, 27/5/1998 int.). [T2] also regarded DST as
a problem (int. 25/3/1999).

Chapter Eight 273
DST causes the following problem in terms of teachers. If schools have a sufficient
number of teachers, those who teach in the morning session do not teach in the afternoon
session or vice-versa. In this case they have a chance to relax, or prepare themselves for
the next day when they are free. Yet if schools do not have a sufficient number of
teachers, they have to teach in both sessions. Considering the shortage of language
teachers in Turkey, having free time is less possible for them. The main effect of the
DST is that if some teachers teach in the morning session and some others in the
afternoon, coming together with teachers to do anything about AR seems to be a real
problem. In addition, the DST causes problems in terms of pupils such as coming to
schools early in the morning, returning home late, especially in the winter, having short
breaks among others.
c) Teachers’ Work Load in Schools
Several teachers complained about the tasks that have to be done in schools. For
instance, T4 stated that he teaches English 28 hours and does 3 hours counselling in a
week (int. 27/5/1998). This teacher maintained his complaints in 1999:
I teach English twenty four hours a week. I teach in six different
classrooms and there are thirty pupils in each one. I have to apply
two written-exams and this makes about 360 examination papers
to mark, each of these exam papers includes twenty questions.
( int. 26/3/1999)
Another teacher’s complaint appeared as follows; “I teach 240 students and apply two
exams. I mark 480 exam papers, each of which includes 20 to 25 question” (int. T5
13/5/1999). Other comments also related to teachers’ work-load. "I teach eighteen hours
in a week and apply three exams in each term. I ask fifty question in each exam, thus
marking these exam papers takes hours and hours, ...” (T6, 14/5/1999 int.). Once this
teacher [T6] confirmed T7’s view by saying; "if we were not so tired, we would help
more” (int. 28/5/1998). In T7’s view he could not help me and participate in the study
much because of the work-load at the school (int. T7 28/5/1998).
Although the term work load is usually refer to teaching lessons and serving as stewards
in schools, teachers do some other tasks about education at home, too, such as preparing
and marking exam papers, preparing daily plans, etc. According to regulation each
teacher has to teach a certain amount of lessons, say 20 hours in a week. If teachers teach

Chapter Eight 274
more than that limit they get some extra salary, but it seems that work-load is a barrier to
this AR study.
d) The National Curriculum (NC)
It was seen in Chapter 3 and Chapter 6 that the NC includes a series of policies and
practices about education and training activities in Turkey and that teachers put these
policies into practice through annual plans in schools. The following extracts indicate
how the NC was a barrier to the implementation of this AR study. For instance, T2, after
counting barriers such as double session teaching, shortage of schools and the annual
plans of lessons, stated that “ now I have to teach/finish three books... of the Hot Line
series, these are Starter, Elementary and Intermediate...” (int. 25/3/1999). Another
teacher [T6], after regarding SBR as barriers to the study, stated that “ regulations
require us to finish/teach topics in the textbooks” (int. 26/3/1999).
As seen teachers have to teach/finish the contents of the annual plans. So the question of
applying action plans and teaching that day's topic at the same time gains more
importance. Teachers stated the following views about ignoring annual plans for a few
weeks and using action plans instead of the NC. For T4“no, we do not have such a
possibility...” (int. 26/3/1999). T5's answer was negative about it (int. 26/3/1999). In
T6's view, “no such thing could happen” (int. 26/3/1999). Briefly, teachers stated the
impossibility of ignoring the annual plans.
These teachers also stated the following views about ignoring or being behind the NC as
follows: "we [teachers] are obliged to finish the annual plans, but If I know my pupils, I
teach some topics superficially. Pupils do not like some topics, so I ignore those topics”.
In this context she also stated that she could spend about “ten minutes” to apply action
plans without ignoring the annual plan, but she further stated that, "this may change
according to that day’s topic, reading text, etc." (T5, 26/3/1999 int.). Another teacher
[T6] stated that the maximum amount of time she could spend to apply action plans in a
40 minute lesson is about 20 minutes (int. 26/3/1999). Consequently, the above noted
extracts indicate that the NC and annual plans are barriers to the implementation of
action plans in classrooms.
e) Freedom of Speech

Chapter Eight 275
It seemed that one of the important barriers the study explored was teachers’ lack of
freedom to express or to publicise their views about education and teaching in the mass
media. T7 first raised this issue on 24/3/1998. T5 was the first person interviewed by me
after hearing T7’s claim. Hence I wanted to triangulate T7’s claim by asking the same
question to T5. The following extract is illustrative:
ET: one of the participant teachers said that teachers were not
allowed to spell out their opinions in the news, newspapers, on
radio, TV, etc. what do you think of it?... how long have you
been teaching English?
T 5: twelve years,
ET: ... imagine there is a programme about English language
teaching on a local TV or radio.... You want to talk about your
teaching experience by joining in that programme, what do
you need to do?
T5: the first thing the teacher has to do is to get permission
from the school management.
ET: can teachers not join that sort of programme without
permission?
T5: No, they cannot,
..........................
ET: Well, do you know if head teachers themselves are
allowed to give permission?
T5: I do not know that,...
ET: this is very interesting,... Let us finish here, thank you.
( int. 26/3/1999)
In this context it seems relevant to include T7’s view here. In his view:
If there is no freedom of thought or speech in a society, this
badly affects teachers’ teaching. He also stated that ... no
teacher is allowed to express his/her ideas about education or
training through mass media.... T7 maintained that ... we
cannot express our views or ideas because of rules, but a lay
person can talk about education. As to teachers we are not
allowed to talk about education and training, I must say this,
[you] tell this. (int. 24/3/1999)
Here freedom of speech may refer to teachers’ right to publish their research results. It
may refer to teachers’ joining a live programme on the radio or TV and explaining their
experiences. Stenhouse (1980) stressed the importance of publicising research. If
teachers do not have the right to speak publicly, this endangers the dissemination of
these action research results.

Chapter Eight 276
I pursued this issue by interviewing the head teachers of the school in which this AR was
undertaken. One head teachers [CZ] confirmed this issue by saying, “yes, ... this is the
case in Turkey. Hence, Act 65723
should be revised in line with current conditions” (int.
12/5/1999). Another head teacher [BA] stated this by saying; "they [teachers] are
allowed to speak publicly after getting permission from the LEA” (int. 13/5/1999).
Consequently, it is seen that teachers are not allowed to speak publicly. Two of these
head-teachers [CZ, BA] stressed the importance and necessity of freedom of speech for
teachers and other officers. In this sense these head-teachers’ views were pro-freedom
and democracy in terms of teachers, but the last head teacher [SK] advocates Act 657
and his views were not pro-freedom or democracy for teachers. For him, "various views
may mislead the public. If there are various views about a topic, the public may
misunderstand it,...” ( int. 13/5/1999).
f) Miscellaneous Barriers
This section reveals the various views stated by two teachers. According to T6,
"conditions and atmosphere must be suitable for the study”. In her view “teachers are
very busy and many things need to be done at schools. She further stated that "the
positions of the participant teachers must be better, the topic to be studied must be good
enough” ( int. 28/5/1998).
The other teacher complained about low salary many times, but this seems to be related
to governmental policies, economic development of the state etc. He stated that,
“teachers must be volunteers and conditions must be suitable”. He continued as follows:
The things about this are interrelated, the amount of salary
teachers get from the government psychologically affects their
productivity and the quality of teaching. If teachers try to survive
in restricted conditions or if they think that they are not paid
sufficiently,... they cannot be so motivated to teach... Secondly,
some teachers… consider giving private language lessons, which
pay about 5, 000, 000 Turkish Liras (TL).
He further stated the inequality of wages between teachers and workers. According to
his example, a university graduate [teacher] earns 130, 000, 000 TL, but the workers
who only finished primary school earn 200, 000, 000 TL or 250, 000, 000TL. He went
23
This act explains the rules and regulations that should be taken into account by officers who work at the

Chapter Eight 277
on to say "if the solution to life's difficulties is money, it is normal for teachers to
consider money" In his view “teachers cannot afford to buy a newspaper" (int.
24/3/1999). The following diary notes reveal his complaint about low salary:
T7 and I were on the stairs when this talk took place and I was
about the leave the school. T7, pointing his hand towards a private
school, stated that we work here for 70, 000, 000 TL, but the
teachers teach at that school earn 200, 000, 000 TL although they
do the same job and teach the same topics... [Note that salaries
are paid monthly in Turkey]. (diary 11/5/1998, p. 38)
The following currency rates between TL and Pound (£) explain the point.
1 Pound (£) in June1995 = 55,000 TL
1 Pound (£) in December 2000 = 1, 000, 000 TL
1 Pound (£) in May 2001 = 1, 600, 000 TL
8.9.2.2. Possible Solutions to SBR
After noticing and experiencing some obstacles to the study at the end of the 1st
cycle,
teachers were consulted to learn about the possibility of tackling these. For instance, in
one view, “now double sessions are a problem, but there is no solution for it”(int.
25/3/1999). In another view (T4), "now these are really problems...but these are non-
answerable problems”. In his view “we cannot...” solve the SBR. "They are generally
related to the State, national, and the governmental policies”. The solution, for instance,
to double session teaching in his view is“ to build up new schools, but these are a matter
of investment” ( 26/3/1999 int.). T2's answer to my question ‘can we reduce teachers’
work load?’ was no” (int. 25/3/1999). Similarly, in T5's view the participant teachers
and I (researcher) cannot solve the SBP. (int. 26/3/1999). On the same note, T6 regarded
SBR as being real barriers to the study by saying “yes, ...we cannot solve the SBR” (int.
26/3/1999).
8.9.2.3. Discussion
As a result, the interviewed teachers and head-teachers accept, as happened with TBR,
the existence of SBR. Having stated various aspects of the SBR, they saw no possibility
of solving teachers’ work-load in schools, ending double session teaching, or eliminating
governmental offices.

Chapter Eight 278
the influence of the NC and annual plans. Nor did they feel it was possible to solve the
problems of low salary. In the teachers’ view the solutions to these problems mainly
depended on governmental policies. Although I called the barriers in section 8.9. school-
based reasons, alternatively these can be named ‘system-based reasons’ too.
It is necessary to explain teachers’ lack of freedom a bit more at this point. In the
previous section it was stated that teachers were not allowed to reveal their views and
experiences about teaching and learning in the media. This means that teachers are not
allowed to talk about political issues, or social problems publicly. More than this, not
only teachers but also all of the officers serving in any governmental offices such as tax
officers, nurses, doctors, etc. are not allowed to speak publicly. This prohibition leads to
very important issues concerning the elements of democracy. The term ‘democracy’ is
not only a political term, but it is a feature of AR, as seen in Chapter 4. This implies that
AR studies ‘grow’ in democratic societies. In this sense research contexts must provide
the minimal requirements of being in a democratic society. These are freedom of speech,
freedom of belief, human rights, etc.
As seen above, teachers are not allowed to explain their language teaching experiences
publicly. Although this is one of the issues in AR study, in the broadest sense the issue
of human rights emerges. I would argue that revealing ideas or experiences, like eating,
drinking and sleeping, is one of the basic needs. It is like one of the humanistic needs.
Consequently, SBRs are as important as TBRs are, but both of them have been major
barriers to the implementation of this study.
8.10. Participant Teachers’ Suggestions for further AR Studies
Introduction
This part aims to answer the 6th
research question.
studies in Turkey?
In the foregoing part (8.9.) we read the main sources of problems namely: the TBR and
SBR. So, one can presumably suggest that if the TBR and SBR were solved, AR studies
could be undertaken in Turkey. I felt that participant teachers should be interviewed in
1998 to elicit their suggestions for the next cycle. Likewise, teachers’ suggestions were
collected in written form through letters in 1999 (undated 16/9/1999) [see appendix U],

Chapter Eight 279
but note that two of the teachers [T6 and T7] did not return the materials sent to them in
1999. The following questions were asked during the last interviews in 1998. What
should I have done in this study?, What do you suggest for the next cycle?
8.10.1. An Overview of Teachers’ Suggestions
8.10.2.1. Data Collection
a) Using Questionnaires
Two teachers raised this point. For instance, T2 and T7 stated the necessity of "applying
questionnaires to pupils” (int. 29/5/1998), (int. 28/5/1998). In their view questionnaires
might be useful to obtain more information about pupils’ attitudes to the participant
teachers and to explore why some pupils have less motivation. I did not, however,
follow this suggestion, as I felt that more direct ways of interacting with students were
more appropriate for a qualitative study.
b) Observing More Classrooms
This demand was expressed by T4 in 1999 and his views can be stated as follows:
You [I] entered only one class with me [T4]. You could observe
other classrooms as well... Instead of only one classroom, you
could include eight to ten classrooms from this school. I believe
that including more pupils and teachers is more useful. ... besides,
we can write papers about various topics. (int. 27/5/1998)
Unfortunately, it was impossible for me to observe eight to ten classrooms from each
school because I was the only person who arranged meetings, interviews, prepared
materials, observed classrooms, interviewed pupils, teachers, etc. Nevertheless, I agree
that, in principle, it would have been useful to obtain further observational data.
c) More Dialogue and In-depth Interviews
In T7’s view, [I] “should have more dialogue with subjects and conduct in-depth
interviews with less pupils rather than including more pupils” (int. 28/5/1998). As stated
in Chapter 7, 40 interviews were conducted in 1998, but it seems to me that 40
interviews is not too few for a researcher who does and arranges everything for the
study.
8.10.1.2. Undertaking Procedure of AR

Chapter Eight 280
a) Having More Meeting with Teachers
The following demand was stated by T2 in 1998. In her view:
If we had a meeting at the very outset and you [I] gave detailed
information, ... if we had studied the materials you prepared
through the use of question and answer technique,... and If we
had a regular meeting every two weeks, the study would be
better,... Let us have more meetings in next years’ study.
( int. 29/5/1998)
Not having many meetings and studying the materials were among the major problems.
Although we met only once in 1998 to choose the topic, we came together several times
with the teachers in 1999 to review the theoretical information about AR. Since every
teacher chose his/her action plans independently in 1999, each teacher was seen
individually to evaluate his/her action plans because of double session teaching.
Although Elliott (1991) supports individual evaluation of the AR studies if teachers
teach in different schools, it would have been beneficial to the study, I believe, to have
held more interviews. However, this did not prove possible in practice.
b) Informing Teachers
This was another common point raised by two teachers. The goal of it was about the
creation of data analysis reports. For instance, T4 and T7 stated that, I “ should produce
a report about the findings of the 1st
cycle of AR and send this to the teachers” (int. T4
27/5/1998), (int. T7 28/5/1998). In this context T7 also wanted me to include“ my
expectations from the study and participant teachers, including the amount of
achievement from expectations. I responded to these requests from the participant
teachers twice, by sending them interim data analysis and transcription of data. [see
section 7. 7.3. in Chapter 7].
c) Giving More Help/Guidance
T5 stated this desire at the end of the 1st
cycle. In her view I should help and guide
teachers in the next cycle. She also g
ave an example of how I should speak or behave
during the study as follows: “do this at this point, do that. You [I] must intervene
whenever you [I] feel it necessary... If you do so, I’m quite happy with your instruction”
(int. 27/5/1998).

Chapter Eight 281
Since I knew that teachers were not aware of AR studies during my field studies in 1997,
it was my task to help to the teachers and provide guidance during the study. To that end
some study materials were prepared and given to the teachers. Besides this, the analysis
of collected data and production of action plans were collaboratively done with teachers.
However, implementing action plans was, in my view, each teacher’s own
responsibility. This is because the teachers had agreed to implement action plans in their
classrooms while teaching English in classrooms. My task was to observe whether, and
how, teachers used the action plans. I was reluctant to say ‘do this or do that’ at this
stage in the classroom because I did not want to remove their agency and right to make
decisions. The question of whether or not to intervene is always a problematic one for
academic researchers/facilitators of action research.
8.10.1.3. General Suggestions
a) Popularise the AR Movement
Those who returned the materials in 1999 stated the following views about further AR
studies in Turkey. Note that T2 wrote her suggestions in Turkish and I translated them
into English. Her views were as follows:
It is necessary to explain and to get teachers to accept the notion
of AR in Turkey. I seriously think about the idea of the ‘teachers
as researchers’ movement. Teachers must take ‘notes’ after the
lessons about to what extent the topic was understood by pupils,
which topics were difficult to learn and why some students did not
learn well. In other words, we (teachers) must learn how to keep
a diary and collect data from the pupils (letter, undated 1999).
b) Opening New Universities
T4 suggested this idea. His explanations focus on the necessity of opening new
universities in Turkey.
I think ... we need to carry out more research. Secondly, our
governments should take responsibility to open new universities
because many of students cannot do a higher degree because of
limited quotas (letter, undated 1999).
c) Open-minded Teaching

Chapter Eight 282
T5’s suggestions are about language teaching rather than eliminating the barriers to the
implementation of AR in Turkey. She stated:
I believe that we [teachers] must be open to new methods and
suggestions during language teaching activities. In classroom
practices each pupil poses a different view. Every new study
contributes to language teaching (letter, undated).
d) Miscellaneous Suggestions
T6 stated this suggestion in 1998 for the next cycle:
As I said there must be proper conditions and atmosphere for the
study. You can try this study not only on pupils in schools, but
also on adults outside the school. (int. 28/5/1998)
This teacher repeated the need for proper conditions and proper participants a few times.
She herself had already stated that we could not solve the TBR and SBR. It was
impossible for me to eliminate these problems from the study. As to her second desire,
trying/testing language teaching on adults outside the school lay outside my current
research objectives.
Summary of the Participant Teachers’ Suggestions
Using Questionnaires Miscellaneous Suggestions
Informing Teachers More Dialogue and in-depth interviews
Having more meetings Popularise the AR movement
Observing more classrooms Opening new universities
Giving more help/guidance Open-minded teaching
Some of the suggestions may be useful to undertake an AR study. For instance, having
more meetings with teachers, giving more help/guidance. Some suggestions related to
data collection rather than facilitating AR studies or eliminating the barriers to the study.
Examples of these are using questionnaires, observing more classrooms, conducting in-
dept interviews, etc. While it might have been advantageous, in principle, to adopt some
of these, the scope of the study did not allow for that. Some of the suggestions were not
practically possible. For instance, opening new universities; or popularising the AR
movement..
It can also be seen that none of the above noted suggestions address the barriers that are
known as TBR and SBR. These suggestions reflect teacher’s personal views. In

Chapter Eight 283
summary, I strongly believe that action researchers should elicit the participant teachers’
suggestions at the end of each action cycle. Teachers’ suggestions could be helpful in
planning further AR studies in Turkey, even if they are not final solutions.
8.11. Summary of the Issues
8.11.1. Before the Study
The participant teachers did not seem to have pre-knowledge and experience of AR in
general, and had not been involved in any AR study before. I therefore tried to introduce
the notion of AR to them by giving some written materials about AR and involving them
in an actual AR. Classroom observations indicated that much of the language teaching
activities were based on teacher-based exercises although there were some pupil-based
activities and some indication of readiness for an action-research approach.
8.11.2. During the Study
From the observations, the following general points can be made about the classroom
atmosphere and the language teaching conditions during the use of action plans. Firstly,
it appeared that teachers were able to use action plans while following the NC. However,
teachers needed to ignore the NC to some extent, although they were primarily
responsible for it, in order to pursue an AR approach. For these or other reasons, there
were also indications that some teachers were not eager to use the action plans. There
was, therefore, a question of commitment to the study.
8.11.3. After the Study
Although the participant teachers, pupils, two head teachers, and the LEA stated some
positive views about this AR study and the influences of action plans, the collected data
posed more questions than it answered. In other words, the data raised issues that would
need to be investigated in further studies. Some brief statements can be made about the
overall outcome of the SOAR study.
• Teachers could not apply action plans all the time, but all of them stated positive
views.
• External researchers’ effort and help, or support materials, become meaningless
unless teachers are really involved in the study.

Chapter Eight 284
• Among the five participants only one teacher fully answered the questions about
‘definition, objectives, stages, etc. of AR’. Two more of the participants answered
some of the questions.
• The majority of the interviewed pupils stated positive views about action plans. In
their view pupils more easily learned the meaning of English words [vocabulary]
when these were taught according to the action plans used in 1998 and 1999.
• Pupils had difficulty in the following areas: if words [English vocabulary] are long
[e.g. immediately, dictionary, etc.], have more than one meaning, [e.g. book (noun),
book (verb), etc., are uninteresting and less frequently used, homophones, abstract
words [e.g. beauty, mind, etc.], also adverbs, pronunciation of new words.
• Five of the teachers stated positive views about the overall influence of AR study.
• Two head teachers and the deputy head of LEA also stated positive views about AR
study.
• Two types of barriers (TBR and SBR) were identified to the actual use of AR study
in Turkey.
• The solution to TBR in Turkey is likely to be difficult. On the other hand, the
solution of SBR depends on governmental and investment policies.
• Teachers’ suggestions for undertaking further AR study are not likely to eradicate all
of the TBR and SBR.
• In general, pupils’ and teachers’ needs are addressed by the use of the qualitative
approach and this was one of the principles of AR-based language teaching
suggested in Chapter 5.

Chapter Nine 285
CHAPTER NINE
IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Introduction
This chapter discusses the general findings and implications of the study. I shall first
review the objectives and the process of the study. Secondly, I shall summarise the
issues which emerged and the general findings of all the chapters, and discuss the
potential implications of the study. Finally, I shall provide a criticism of the study and
some suggestions for further AR studies in Turkey.
9.1. Review of the Objectives
This thesis is an account of a first-order and second-order action research study with five
participant teachers at three types of schools in Turkey. The study, as stated in Chapter
1, investigated how AR might be introduced and used in English language classrooms in
Turkey. The reasons for undertaking the study emerged from the lack of AR studies and
the need for improving the traditional method of language teaching in the Turkish
context. Although the study addressed a range of topics, as set out in each chapter, the
specific focus and objective of the study was the fourth research question which referred
to improving English Language Teaching and the selected topic -vocabulary teaching.
To these ends the study had the following aims:
a) to explore the possible ways of introducing AR in Turkey;
b) to explore the use and influence of AR and specifically the use of action
plans on the selected topic;
c) to understand the perceptions of those involved, through observation and
interviews;
d) to discover the reasons behind any problems which arose in implementing
AR, and
e) to stimulate suggestions for further AR studies.
The study, using case study method, undertook a first and second order AR approach at
the same time. The AR element was used while planning the study, implementing action
plans and evaluating the results. The case study element was used to set boundaries

Chapter Nine 286
around the study in the form of several cases [schools]. Data analysis was based on a
qualitative approach, and favoured interpretation over qualification. Therefore data
collection chiefly relied on interviews, observations, diary notes, documents and
photographs. Finally, the reportage of analysis was made accessible through case
reports.
9.2. The Study Process
The study started in 1997 by conducting field studies, the aims of which were to identify
the starting point and focus of the study, and to select participants and schools. Having
seen that the participant teachers were not aware of AR, some written materials about
AR were prepared and given to teachers in 1997. Besides this, two attempts were made
to introduce theoretically the notion of AR before undertaking the 1st
cycle. The first
attempt was to run a short-term and local Inset activity and the other was to run several
workshops with participant teachers. However, neither of the attempts occurred in 1997
and 1998 for reasons discussed in Chapter 6. That is, in 1998 the first cycle of SOAR
was undertaken without studying the given materials and running the Inset and
workshops. Before undertaking the second cycle of SOAR in 1999, the participant
teachers were individually visited in their schools to introduce AR to them. To that end
12 informal discussions took place in the staff rooms of those schools. The second cycle
of SOAR was implemented after these visits and the study ended in May 1999.
9.3. Review of the Situation before the Study
Since there was no AR study on English language teaching in the research site [Ordu], I
initiated the study by collecting data from pupils, and teachers to discover something
about language teaching situations, classroom and school contexts. First of all, it was
seen that the participant teachers were not aware of AR, either in theory or in practice. In
addition, language-teaching sessions were analysed through classroom observations.
This base line data revealed the traditional methods of English language teaching. It was
seen that many of the patterns used while teaching English were teacher-based and that
the teachers seldom used a reflective activity during classroom observations. Pupil-based
exercises were few and didactic. That is, pupils seemed to be the performers of the
teachers’ orders. Pupils were also talking/using English only when their teachers asked
them questions. At other times, they usually whispered in Turkish during English lessons
and spoke Turkish during breaks.

Chapter Nine 287
It seemed that language teaching was centrally identified and that teachers had to use the
NC and annual plans. It was seen that the NC was a reflection of the national policies of
the state, and that annual plans indicated the topics that should be taught throughout the
year. In addition, most of the participant teachers complained about the old textbooks
that were prepared on the basis of the ALM in the 1970s. In teachers’ views these books
have been used for three decades and they should be revised regularly. In this context, it
was also realised that undertaking any curriculum or small-scale syllabus study in
schools would be extremely difficult because of bureaucratic reasons.
9.4. Review of the Issues that Emerged from the Study
As a result of the analysis of collected data, several issues emerged. It is possible to
discuss each issue individually, but most of the issues are interrelated. Consider, for
instance, the finding that teachers pay attention to other participants’ life style, hair style
[e.g. T7]. This can be regarded as a personal issue. It can also be taken as a social or
cultural issue. Hence, it was assumed that presenting similar issues under a common title
would be better and save space. Issues are, therefore, discussed under the following
headings:
- Legal (political)
- Educational
- Governmental
- Social
- Cultural
- Personal
The above noted legal, educational and governmental issues are related to laws, acts,
decrees, etc., whereas social, cultural and personal issues are related to ‘understanding or
interpretations’ of events, actions, etc.
9.4.1. Legal (political) Issues
It was seen that the state wants to preserve its systems (legal, educational, etc.) as each
state does all over the world. However, it seemed to me that the state restricts even
fundamental rights and freedoms of the people in order to preserve the existing system
[see 3.5. in Chapter 3]. For instance, teachers are not allowed to talk/explain their
teaching experience in the mass media. This is because act 657 does not allow not only
teachers, but also all others who work/serve in governmental sectors to speak publicly.

Chapter Nine 288
Since dissemination and publication of AR results are necessary conditions, the question
about overcoming dissemination problem remains unanswered.
9.4.2. Educational Issues
These issues also derive from the legal structure of the state system. For instance,
education and training activities are centrally decided and evaluated. The following
issues emerged. Each would need to be addressed individually in follow-up
investigations.
• Examination constraints and the custom of making it easy to pass exams:
This system badly affects the quality of education, and de-motivates both teachers
and pupils/students.
• Language teaching by non-professionals: This negatively affects the quality of
English language teaching. How to overcome the shortage of teachers remains
unanswered.
• Textbooks [Course books]: The MOE identifies the books, their contents and the
teaching methodology. Some of the currently used textbooks and their contents are
old and teachers complain about them The use of old and uninteresting books de-
motivates language teachers and affects the quality of English language teaching.
• National Curriculum: Teachers have to teach the contents of the books identified by
the NC. Hence the question of ignoring the NC and applying AR or action plans does
not seem to be practical. It is also not clear how to sort this problem out.
• Multi-age classrooms: One or two teachers teach several classrooms of pupils in one
classroom because of the shortage of teachers. Since English language teaching starts
in year 4 of primary schools, language teaching at these schools is problematic.
• Non-specialist teachers: In rural areas either non-professionals teach English or
some other lessons are taught instead of English. Solving these problems is the task
of the MOE and HEC, but this problem also relates to governmental policies.
• Double session teaching: In addition to general negative effects in terms of an AR
approach it seems that it is difficult/impossible to have meetings with teachers if
some teach in the morning and some in the afternoon. Collaboration is often difficult
because of clashing lesson hours.

Chapter Nine 289
• Crowded classrooms: the number of pupils in each classroom appeared to influence
a) the teaching of normal lesson plans, b) classroom management c) the use of AR
and action plans. Teachers are primarily responsible for teaching the NC. They also
try to keep the pupils under control. So the question ‘how can we involve such
teachers in an AR study?’ remains unanswered.
• Work over-load: Teachers seemed to be teaching from 20 to 30 hours per week.
Besides this, they set exams [written, oral] and mark exam papers, together with
homework. Some of teachers stated that they felt tired. It seems that it is difficult to
involve tired teachers in AR studies.
9.4.3. Governmental Issues
It seems that many of the above mentioned issues are related to governmental policy and
decisions. If, for instance, the custom which allows easy class passing is in practice now,
this does not mean that this law will be in practice in perpetuity. That is, every newly
established government may investigate the shortcoming and needs of the education
system, schools, teachers, etc. Therefore government could find solutions to the many of
the issues identified in this study by building up new schools, training more teachers,
revising English course books etc.
9.4.4. Social, Cultural and Personal Issues
It is possible to distinguish these, but they are, I believe, interrelated. Some examples of
these are lack of empathy, prejudices, past relations, life style of teachers, social
differences, different understanding (interpretations) of events, sharing holy days and
months, having/not having common interests, among others. These prevent teachers
working collaboratively and joining in a study. It was also seen that the level of
‘prejudice’ in the research context was high. As a result, the solutions of social, cultural
and personal issues would be very difficult.
9.5. Summary of the General Findings
This section aims to present an account of overall findings in terms of the research
questions stated in Chapter 1.
Question 1:

Chapter Nine 290
Q 1-) What are the contextual elements [factors] that might support or prevent AR
studies in Turkey?
1) to explore legal, educational, etc. obstacles from the literature.
Answer 1:
It was seen that educational acts are the reflection of the political structure of the State
and action researchers do not have the power to change these rules and regulations [see
also answer 5]. It was also seen that the educational acts and regulations in the research
site prevent or discourage AR studies [see conclusion in Chapter 3,]. Besides this, ITT,
Inset, the NC, English textbooks are centrally identified and there is very little
possibility for participants to change them. The examination system in schools seemed
to be problematic because of the system that assesses pupils’ success. Not only the
participant teachers but also head teachers complained about this system. The teachers’
and head teachers’ suggestions for the improvement of ‘education and training activities,
together with school management’ in Turkey might be useful if they were put into
practice. Note that very few of these suggestions could be carried out by external action
researchers.
Question 2:
Q 2-) What does the literature of AR say about the ‘introduction and initiation’ of AR
studies in various contexts for the first time?
1) to explore these views from the literature of AR.
Answer 2:
The literature of AR was critically reviewed to answer the question covering the
‘introduction and initiation of AR studies in various contexts for the first time’. It was
seen that very few of the researchers expressed views about the ‘introduction and
initiation’ of AR studies for the first time. The literature review endorsed the necessity
of involving teachers in identifying the focus of the study [Chapter 4]. It was also seen
that there were several claims about the origin of AR and that the literature of AR was
rich in terms of definitions, objectives, models and types of AR. I therefore produced my
own definition of AR and suggested that evaluation of AR studies undertaken for higher
degrees (MA, M.Phil, PhD) should be based on different criteria than those of AR
studies undertaken to improve education and training activities in schools. In association

Chapter Nine 291
with this I suggested that external help, guidance and materials about AR should be
given to the participants if they were unaware of AR. However, such introduction was
not seen as sufficient to undertake the study in all contexts. It was noted that contextual
factors/elements (e.g. political, social, etc.) must also be taken into account by action
researchers.
Question 3:
Q 3-) Can we reconcile AR and language teaching theories in order to teach English
more successfully?
1) to review the previous AR studies on language teaching to see if any of these
2) to explore some common points between AR and language teaching theories.
Answer 3:
The literature of AR and the literature of language teaching/learning studies were
critically reviewed to reconcile these two fields and to explore some common points.
The aim of exploring these common points or patterns was to offer suggestions to
improve English language teaching in general in the research contexts, and other places
of the world. After critically reviewing the literature, it was seen that previous AR-based
language studies did not make such an attempt. Hence I myself produced and posed
some common principles by interpreting and adapting the features of AR in terms of
language teaching theories. Some of these principles address learners’ needs, using a
qualitative approach to teaching, negotiating with learners rather than bringing
prescribed methods and materials. It was hoped that the outcome of language teaching
studies would be more successful if English language teachers used these principles.
Question 4:

Chapter Nine 292
Answer 4:
Five of the participant teachers stated positive views about the impacts of AR and action
plans although one teacher [T7] did not/could not implement the action plans at all. Out
of 44 pupils, 41 of them stated that the use of action plans had helped them to learn the
Turkish meaning of English words. Two head teachers and the LEA representative also
stated positive views about the influence of AR, but the head teacher [SK] talked
generally about the problems of language teaching and education system of Turkey.
Although the participant teachers, interviewed pupils, and head teachers claimed that the
use of AR and action plans improved English language teaching and the selected topic -
vocabulary teaching - the AR study was trapped by two kinds of barriers as will be seen
below. In general, the data raises more issues than it addresses and asks more questions
than it answers.
Question 5:
Answer 5:
I have already noted above (Answer 3) that educational rules and regulations comprised
some of the barriers to the implementation of an actual AR study. It was also seen that
there were some other barriers that hindered the implementation of the study. These
barriers, with the agreement of the participant teachers, were called TBR and SBR. In
these concepts the TBRs referred to personal, social and cultural issues of the research
context. The SBRs referred to legal, educational, governmental issues. Although the
problems that emerged were summarised as TBR and SBR, I do not claim that this was
the whole story about the research context. It is obvious that more research is needed to
explore the above noted issues and the barriers to the study.
Question 6:

Chapter Nine 293
studies in Turkey?
Answer 6:
The participant teachers’ suggestions for further AR studies were collected. Some of
these suggestions might facilitate/support further AR studies, but these suggestions
cannot solve the TBR and SBR completely. It may perhaps be possible to solve the
SBRs in the long term, by building new school buildings, ending double session
teaching, employing more language teachers, etc. Solution of the TBRs will be equally
difficult. Perhaps an ethnographic study could be undertaken to investigate the TBRs,
cultural and social dimensions of the context. In addition, it would be worth
investigating how best to solve the SBRs with further studies by collecting data from
those who are in charge of educational activities and investment policies among others.
The above-summarised overall findings can be re-stated as hypotheses as follows.
Producing or generating some hypotheses at the end of a research process that was
essentially qualitative is not a usual tradition. However since, as stated earlier, the data
raised more issues than it addressed and asked more questions than it answered, it seems
reasonable to summarise the issues in this form. The letter 'H' stands for hypothesis in
the following list.
H1) We can claim that if the potential participants are not aware of AR, action
researchers should give external help and guidance to these teachers.
H2) We can also claim that external help and guidance can be supplied for
teachers, but other elements of the research context (e.g. political, social, etc.) must be
taken into account by action researchers.
H3) Alternatively, we may assert that if a considerable amount of time was spent
to prepare the participant teachers for the study, these teachers could participate in the
research more consciously.
H4) However, we can also pose that external help, guidance, etc. become
meaningless unless teachers are genuinely involved in the study.

Chapter Nine 294
H5) On the other hand, if social relations and double sessions were not barriers to
the study, we would have more meetings with the participant teachers.
H6) The use of AR produces some good results, but action researchers can not
escape from the obstacles of the research context.
H7) One can claim that although TBR and SBR have hindered the study, the use
of AR produced tentatively positive results.
H8) One can also claim that if we were able to solve the TBR and SBR, action
research studies might produce more successful outcomes.
H9) Similarly, one can claim that if the NC and annual plans were not barriers to
the use of action plans in classrooms, the participant teachers could have more time to
apply action plans.
H10) Action researchers cannot do anything about the solution of SBRs as long
as the investment policies are centrally decided by the government.
9.6. The Implications of the Study
9.6.1. Introduction of AR in Turkey
The efforts spent in this study to introduce AR in Turkey are a long way from suggesting
some clear-cut conclusions. However, I believe that the effort to introduce AR in Turkey
should continue. Here the word ‘introduction’ refers to introduction of AR to the
teachers and researchers in various ways in Turkey. For instance, this might involve
including a module on AR in the ITT programme to make student teachers aware of AR.
Another possibility would be to run Inset courses, or workshops for current teachers to
make them aware of AR. Similarly, ‘introduction of AR’ also refers to making AR
studies widespread in schools and universities in Turkey. This effort would also include
making the AR approach a part of academic and scientific studies in Turkey.
Action Research has stood the test of time in the UK, Canada, America, Australia, etc.
The approach is not like other language teaching methods such as the GTM, ALM, DM,
etc. Many of these approaches, methods and techniques are theoretical and they offer
hundreds of ‘descriptive rules’ about how language should be used or taught. It is well-

Chapter Nine 295
established that theoretical information about language teaching does not work in
classrooms because of pupils’ likes, dislikes, weaknesses, strengths, etc. I believe that
theory and practice can be united through the use of the AR approach that consists of
both teaching and researching principles. Hence the use of this approach would provide
first hand information to teachers about the pros and cons of the methods, materials and
approaches used in the classroom.
The introduction of AR in this study has been problematic. For instance, as noted above,
there were numerous reasons why my attempts to familiarise the teachers with AR, and to
involve them fully in an AR study, did not fully succeed. It seems likely that other
teachers in Turkey are equally unaware of AR, and this evidence supports the necessity of
co-ordinating strategies to introduce AR in Turkey. More than this, this study indicated
that the way in which AR is introduced is also an important matter and the possible ways
of introduction must be explored.
9.6.2. Initiation of Change in the Context
Practitioner teachers or professional researchers may undertake AR studies for various
purposes. Regardless of their objectives, those who undertake AR studies face the notion
of change. So it can be argued that the AR studies reflect the contextual conditions
within which they are located. No study is problem free and no change takes place
easily.
The initiation of change covers not only educational issues and barriers, but also legal,
social, cultural, etc. issues and barriers. Change in educational contexts can be initiated
in many ways. For instance, according to Fullan (1995) educational change must take
place at the local, regional and national levels, and internal and external factors affect the
implementation of change. This thesis suggests that the initiation of change in the
research context is not an easy job, because of internal and external factors such as those
identified by Fullan.
For instance, it was seen that ‘external’ factors, in the form of the SBRs, (e.g. crowded
classrooms, teachers' workload in schools, etc.) were one set of barriers to the initiation
of change. It was argued that the surmounting of these barriers mostly depended on
governmental decisions and their investment policies. It was also that ‘internal’ factors -
i.e. TBRs - were problematic. It seems that teachers’ understanding of life, belief,

Chapter Nine 296
traditions, likes, dislikes, etc. may go against the democratic principle of AR. Hence, this
study suggests that those who want to undertake further AR studies in Turkey must
consider the TBR and SBR before actually initiating the study. As I discuss further
below, the limited opportunities for professional development contribute to teachers’
personal and cultural attitudes.
It was also seen in the literature that one group of researchers define the objectives of
AR in terms of practicality. In this view AR studies try to sort out immediate and
practical problems [(Kemmis 1984, Elliott 1991, McKernan 1991, etc.)]. However, it
was seen that undertaking even a small-scale change in classrooms was almost
impossible. Therefore future action researchers must be prepared as to how to tackle
these problems before initiating the study. Another other group of researchers defined
the objective of AR in the broadest perspective (Carr & Kemmis 1990). In this view, the
word ‘change’ refers to bringing about change not only in the local context of the
research, but also in the wider community. This is often known as ‘emancipatory AR’
and this notion is usually explained by the term ‘critical reflection’. According to this
view the change process must address all aspects of the research contexts (legal,
political, etc.). In other words, it seems that there is a relationship between implementing
changes in the wider community and the outcomes of the AR studies. I have similarly
suggested that the solutions of the TBRs and SBRs would depend on bringing about
relevant changes in the wider community.
Consequently, this study revealed some clues about the barriers that prevent change in
the local context (research sites in Ordu) and in the wider context (Turkey). Although
some small-scale change seemed to be possible, how to bring about changes in the wider
community may be the topic of the further AR studies in Turkey.
9.6.3. Teachers’ Professional Development
It is important to address the question of whether the study may have helped to support
teachers’ professional development. The terms teacher development or teacher
professional development are interchangeably used in the literature on educational
change and on action research. This first section explains these terms briefly. It then
explains how this study tried to support teachers’ professional development. While there
are many studies of the notion of teacher development, and teachers’ development

Chapter Nine 297
programmes in the literature, the discussion below deals mainly with the notion of
teacher development through AR studies.
According to Bell & Gilbert 1994 teacher development is a broad notion which includes
teachers’ personal, social and professional development. In MacLure’s (1989) view,
personal and professional developments can be achieved by addressing teachers’ needs
individually. For Fullan & Hargreaves (1992) professional development does not simply
take place with the implementation of innovations. They state that understanding
teachers’ development involves the nature of the knowledge and skills teachers should
have as well as teachers’ personality and the context in which teachers work. For
Wallace (1998) professional development takes place through formal and informal
strategies. In his view, one can professionally develop by reading journals, books,
joining in departmental meeting or by discussing with others.
On the other hand, some researchers state that action research is a powerful motor of
professional development. For instance, McNiff (1993), referring to Elliott’s (1989)
ideas, states that there are two types of professional development in the UK. One is the
‘theory into practice’ approach and the other is the ‘practice into theory’ approach. This
is similar to the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research approaches.
McNiff (1996) further states that AR is an ‘insider’ activity, and that those who are
involved in an AR study acquire or develop a sort of professional development.
According to Broke et al’s view (1988) teachers can achieve professional development
in two ways. They describe one form as an innovation-based approach, in which others
teach teachers what and how to do new plans, programmes, etc. The other is described as
an AR-based approach in which teachers themselves learn how to use their own context
either to solve problems or to improve the quality of teaching. This approach can
therefore also be called a learner centred approach.
This study did not consider teachers’ professional development and curriculum
developments separately. The assumption was that teacher development would be
achieved by involving teachers in a SOAR. Besides this, as described above, I took
responsibility for providing some materials about AR to initiate teachers’ self-learning
and self-development. Moreover, I visited the teachers individually to make them more
aware of AR in 1999. In general, it was hoped that if teachers know how to undertake
AR study, they could initiate small-scale AR studies independently, without seeking

Chapter Nine 298
external help. Implicit in this was the assumption that teachers would learn how to sort
out difficulties or improve their current teaching situations.
The teachers in this study, as seen in Chapter 8, stated that the use of the AR approach
and action plans became useful, and that their understanding of language teaching had
changed to some extent. However, despite their favourable reports most of the teachers
showed little evidence of adopting an AR approach in their practice, because of the
barriers discussed above. Nevertheless, they all stated that the AR approach has changed
their understanding of language teaching. In their view, they benefited from other
colleagues’ experiences and ideas, they learnt new things and tried new things in
classrooms.
Therefore, it could be claimed that this AR study contributed in a small way to teachers’
professional development by raising their awareness of the potential of AR. First of all, it
enabled them to grasp the importance of a qualitative approach to teaching and
researching. In this way, researchers learned the importance of generating theories rather
than testing theories. They also learned something of the importance of using their own
contexts (classrooms, schools) to collect data about problems or their interests. Learning
how to solve problems and improve situations increased the participant teachers’ self-
confidence to a certain extent, rather than expecting help or guidance from others.
Ultimately, however, it has to be asked whether action research can make a significant
difference to professional development in a context where the very notion of
development is itself almost unknown. As the study showed, teachers do not, on the
whole, have the sense of agency that would be needed in order for them to take
responsibility for their own professional development. Moreover, the structure and
culture of schools do not promote the notion of teacher development. There is very little
sense of collegiality, and very little shared discussion amongst teachers about curricular
aims or educational values.
Overall, it can be stated that AR studies may contribute in a limited way to teachers’
professional development in Turkey, as has happened in other places. However, the
possibilities are limited by the lack of support for professional development at the level
of both schools and the wider education system.

Chapter Nine 299
9.6.4. Improvement of Language Teaching
There are numerous theories and models of language teaching. While there are many
differences amongst them, they can all be described as based on ‘pre-decided
assumptions’. That is, each offers as ‘given’ a body of ideas and/or strategies. The
literature contains a great number of studies about those prescribed or theoretical views.
Hence there is some evidence about the usefulness of various techniques, methods,
approaches, materials, etc. For instance, it has been established that the GTM has some
weaknesses and that the CLT has some supremacy over other methods. In other words,
language studies indicate that those who learn a SL or FL by instrumental means usually
learn less successfully than those who use it in their life, or in realistic contexts.
One can explore or investigate language studies by reviewing the literature but this is not
the aim of this section. Instead, I wish to draw readers’ attention to one important
implication. This is that the enormous amount of prescribed or theoretical information
about language teaching might be refined and used by language teachers or researchers.
This study indicated that language teaching and AR were not two entirely separate and
unrelated areas, although each of them has a great amount of literature and studies about
it. What the study indicated was that both AR and language teaching could be united
under similar themes, and that such a reconciliation of AR and language theories could
make language-teaching studies more successful. Equally importantly, it was argued that
previous studies or prescriptive rules about language teaching were not very useful, or
could not be taken as references for language learners. This study stated the importance
of exploring the importance of each learner’s likes and dislikes, weaknesses and
strengths. In this view, not only the literature of language teaching, but also the learners’
strengths and needs identify the methods and materials that would be used. Hence action
researchers can consider these points while undertaking further AR studies in Turkey.
Consequently, this part of the study suggests that language teachers would benefit from
acquaintance not only with language teaching theories, methods or materials, but also
with the literature of AR. This led to the suggestion that a module about AR could be
included in the syllabuses of those countries if their ITT programmes do not include
such a module.

Chapter Nine 300
9.7. Limitations of the Study
This study can be criticised for the following reasons. First, the study took three years,
but I managed to have only one meeting on 17/4/1998 with all the teachers to decide
what topic to study. This could be regarded as an important shortcoming of the study. In
another sense having only one meeting with participants may not be considered as a
weakness of the study because Elliott (1991) states that if teachers teach at different
schools, evaluation of the study can be done individually. This was the solution in this
study.
Added to this, it was not possible to arrange a meeting to negotiate the final analysis of
data. After finishing the data analysis in the UK in 1999, it was impossible to return to
Turkey to discuss the data analysis because of visa problems. Therefore interim data
analysis reports were sent back to the participant teachers in order to get their agreement.
As noted earlier two of the teachers [T6 and T7] did not return the transcriptions and
reports of data analysis. Hence the final analysis was done on a previously given
permission in 1997.
As described in the preceding chapters, there were numerous barriers which prevented
me from holding meetings and carrying out negotiations with the teachers. Visa
restrictions were also a factor. Similarly, I was not able to interview as many pupils as I
had envisaged. Therefore it must be acknowledged that this study fell well short of the
levels of collaboration and negotiation with practitioners that would be expected in an
action research project. Ultimately, my own ‘voice’ has dominated those of the teachers
and pupils, to a point where the SOAR study cannot be said to exemplify a thorough-
going action research ethos. One of the main contributions of the thesis has been to
identify the reasons for this failure fully to implement an AR study.
A third criticism centres on ethical issues with respect to obtaining parents’ permission
while collecting data from pupils. The interviews with pupils usually took place after
classroom observations; sometimes in the staff room, sometimes in classrooms. In both
cases volunteer pupils were interviewed and course teachers and head teachers were
informed about my interviews. Most pupils were interviewed during breaks after the
lesson. The breaks in three of the schools took ten minutes. Consequently, it must be
acknowledged that the study may be criticised from several angles.

Chapter Nine 301
9.8. Further Suggestions for Undertaking AR in Turkey
I believe that offering a step-by-step procedure would be very useful for action
researchers. Some of these suggestions are for professional action researchers. This
refers to those who live, or settle outside Turkey and may undertake an AR study in
Turkey. The other is for teachers, researchers, academics, etc. in Turkey.
Considering the fact that there is little material on AR in Turkey, this study as well as
other AR studies in Turkey may be of limited help to researchers, teachers, etc. in
Turkey who wish to understand and undertake AR studies. It would be necessary to read
more about AR, at least, through the Internet. In the following discussion the word
‘both’ refers to professional action researchers who are outside Turkey and volunteers
who want to learn about AR in Turkey. For instance, an action researcher may choose
participant teachers first, but if head teachers or the LEA do not give permission to enter
classrooms, the choice of participants becomes useless. Hence, I prefer suggesting a
step-by-step guideline.
First, both must choose a context. Context may refer to places in which the AR study
will be undertaken. So the context can be schools or classroom in various places (city,
town centres or villages). Context may also refer to any university department and the
LEA. Note that I give only the examples of educational contexts, not examples of other
contexts such as hospitals, factories, social clubs, etc.
Second, both must get official permission. This permission is needed to enter classrooms
as an observer. If the study is undertaken in schools, action researchers must obtain the
permission of the governor of the city, LEA, head teachers and MOE. The ministry’s
permission is not always required and the LEA informs researchers if this is required or
not. Action researchers need to get permission of the rector and head [dean, manager,
etc.] of faculties, schools, etc. if the study is undertaken in university buildings.
Third, both must identify possible participants. The choice of participant can be done in
two phases. Researchers may choose their participants by using various methods such as
interviews, questionnaires, etc in the first phase. However, it is important to note here
that although participants may volunteer to join in an AR study, some of these volunteer
participants may not have social relationships with other volunteer participants. In the

Chapter Nine 302
second phase, the researcher must elicit the volunteer participants’ view to learn whether
or not they have any reservations.
Fourth, both must have a meeting with participants to choose the focus of the study. If
external researchers have a pre-decided topic, interest, etc, they must not impose their
focus on teachers. Instead, they should seek to persuade teachers. The authorities in
Turkey may not give permission if the selected topic concerns delicate cultural or social
issues.
Fifth, professional action researchers may implement or undertake the AR study by
using various types of AR models. If novice action researchers wish to learn AR by
reading other AR studies in Turkey (Tomakin 1996, Atikler 1997, Önel 1998), these
studies may not cover all the important information about ‘implementation’ of AR.
Hence these studies may not be very informative for novice action researchers.
Similarly, the novice action researchers in Turkey should read more materials about
‘evaluation and reportage of AR studies’, apart from the above noted AR studies.
Briefly, those who are unaware, but want to undertake an AR study by reading other AR
studies in Turkey must review more materials about ‘implementation, evaluation,
reportage of AR’ before actually initiating the study.
Sixth, if the study is to be undertaken with teachers, it is possible that most of the
teachers in Turkey are unaware of AR. I believe that it is better if action researchers
introduce the notion of AR to teachers before the study and give help and guidance
during the study. Teachers may need some training about how to analyse/code the
collected data and produce any sort of report (descriptive, vignettes, narrative, etc.).
Besides this, action researchers may also provide various incentives (Inset certificate,
award-bearing course, money, etc.) for the participants.
9.9. Some Tentative Conclusions
I believe that the reason for being prejudiced comes from political, cultural and social
understanding/interpretations of events, actions, values, etc. I also believe that
everybody has the right to choose his/her own life style, belief, friends group, political
party, etc. but we must have, at least, some good social relationships with the people
around us. These relations may be greeting each other, asking after the others’ family,
etc. However, everybody has the right to choose his/her life style, belief system, likes

Chapter Nine 303
and dislikes, not only in the research context, but all over the world. We, as a researcher,
can explore the cultural issues and social issues of any context. We can also explore the
reasons behind those issues. However, we have no right to say ‘this culture is better than
that culture or this understanding is better than others’ understanding' or vice versa. If
we say so, we break the rule about ‘freedom of belief’ and this is against the democratic
principle of AR. Since the TBR in this study covered a range of issues about personal,
social, cultural aspects of the research context, introduction of AR to Turkey seemed
problematic. It was equally true that the SBRs were barriers to the introduction and
implementation of the AR study in Turkey. In general, the TBR and SBR might be
potential barriers of further AR studies that would be undertaken in Turkey.
By and large, this does not provide clues or evidence as to how to introduce AR in
Turkey more effectively and to make AR studies widespread. This is because various
problems need to be solved and various issues need to be addressed. The use of AR in
schools showed three possibilities. One is that teachers can use AR and the NC at the
same time. The second one is that teachers may need to ignore the NC to some extent in
order to apply action plans in classroom. The final, most pessimistic one is that some
teachers are not eager to apply action plans, and that there is currently little motivation
or opportunity to introduce AR in Turkish schools.
We can claim - considering the reports of four participant teachers’ and forty-one pupils
- that the study has produced some positive results. Hence we can claim that, at best, 'the
glass is half full'. On the other hand, the study shed light not only on the AR aspect of
the context, but also the legal, educational social and cultural obstacles to the
implementation of AR in Turkey. For that reason, we can also claim that although the
study has m
ade a positive influence on English language teaching and the selected topic,
the obstacles to the study prevent us from making a clear-cut decision. Hence it is
possible to argue that, at worst, ‘the glass is half empty’ (Stuart & Kunje 1998, p.377).

References 305
Abbott, A. (1992) ‘What do cases do? Some notes on activity in sociological analysis’,
in Ragin, C. C. (ed.), What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of Social
Inquiry, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53-82.
Adelman, C. (1993) ‘Kurt Lewin and the origins of Action Research’, Educational
Action Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 7-24.
Adelman, G., Jenkins, D., & Kemmis, S. (1984) ‘Rethinking Case Study’, in Bell, J. et
al. (eds.) Conducting Small-Scale Investigations in Educational
Management, London: P. C. P., pp. 93-102.
Adem, M. (1995) Egitim Politikasi, Safak Matbaasi, Ankara.
Aitchison, J. (1993) Linguistics, London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Akmajian, et al. (1990) Linguistics, An Introduction to Language and
Communication, (3rd
edition), Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Allen, H. B. & Campbell, R. N. (1972) Teaching English as a Second Language, New
Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd.
Allen, V. A. (1983) Techniques in Teaching Vocabulary, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (1994) Focus on the Language Classroom, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Allwright, D. (1997) ‘Quality and sustainability in Teacher Research’, TESOL
Quarterly, Vol.31, No.2, pp. 368-371.
Altrichter, A., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (1993) Teachers Investigate their Work,
London: Routledge.
Andrews, R. (1993) ‘Developing Arguments’, English and Media Magazine, Vol. 28,
pp. 34-38.
Anthony, E. (1986) ‘Approach, Method, and Technique’ in Smolinski, F. (ed.)
Landmarks of American Language and Linguistics, Washington, D. C.:
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, US Information Agency., pp. 199-
202.

References 306
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1991) ‘Participatory Action Research and Action Science
Compared’, A Commentary’. in (ed.) Whyte, W. F Participatory Action
Research, London: Sage Publications, pp. 85-96.
Argyris, C. (1982) Reasoning, Learning and Action- Individual and Organisational,
San Francisco, London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Argyris, C. (1999) On Organisational Learning, Oxford: Blackwell.
Armstrong, D. (1992) ‘Using Home Languages in School- an Action Research Project’,
Language Issues, Vol. 5, No 2, pp. 7-9.
Arslanoglu, I. (1997) Turk Egitim Sistemi, Ankara: G. U. Egitim Fakultesi.
Aston, A. (1980) ‘The Humanities Curriculum Project” in Stenhouse, L. (ed.)
Curriculum Research and Development in Action, London: Heinemann,
Educational Books, pp. 139-146.
Atikler, A. (1997) The role of Action Research in the Self-development of an ELT
Teacher: A Descriptive Case Study, Unpublished MA Dissertation, Ankara:
Bilkent University.
Avalos-Bevan, B, (1996) ‘Schooling and the State: A Review of Current Issues’. In
Turner, J. D. (ed.) (1996) The State and the School, An International
Perspective, London: Falmer Press.
Bailey, K. M. (1997) ‘The use of diary studies in teacher education programs’ in
Richards, J. C. & Nunan D. (eds.) Second Language Teacher Education, (7th
edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215-226.
Basaran, I. E. (1994) Turkiye Egitim Sistemi, Ankara: Umut Sokak, No 17-1.
Basaran, I. E. (1996) Egitime Giris, Umut Sokak, No 17-1, Ankara.
Bayrakli, B. (1992) Imtehan Pedagojisi ve Olcme-Degerlendirme Teknikleri,
Istanbul: Yildizlar Matbaasi.
Bell, B. & Gilbert, J. (1994) ‘Teacher Development as Professional, Personal, and Social
Development’, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 483-497.
Bell, J. (1993) Doing Your Research Project, Buckingham: Open University Press.

References 307
Bennett, N. (1996) ‘Learning to Teach: The Development of Pedagogical Reasoning’, in
McBride, R. (ed.) Teacher Education Policy, London: Falmer Press, pp. 76-85.
Binbasioglu, C. (1983) Genel Ogretim Bilgisi, Ankara: Binbasioglu Yay.
Blake, D. (1986) ‘Action Research and INSET’, British Journal of In-service
Education, Vol. 12, No.2, pp. 73-77.
Block, D. (1997) ‘Learning by listening to language learners’, System, Vol. 25, No 3,
pp. 374-360.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1992) Qualitative Research for Education, Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Brock-Utne, B. (1980) ‘What is Action Research?’ The Theory and Practice of
Educational Action Research, in (eds. ) J. Elliott & D. Whitehead, Cambridge
Institute of Education, CARN, Bulletin, No.4, pp. 10-15.
Broker, et al. R. (1998) ‘Action Research for Professional Development on Gender
Issue’ in Etweh, et al. (eds.) Action Research in Practice, London: Routledge,
New York, pp. 189-21l.
Brown, A. & Dowling, P. (1998) Doing Research/Reading Research: A Mode of
Interrogation for Education, London: The Falmer Press.
Brumfit, C. et al. (1991) Teaching English to Children, From Practice to Principle,
London: Collins ELT.
Bryant, I. (1986) ‘ Action Research and Reflective Practice’ in Scott, D. & Usher, R.
(eds.) Understanding Educational Research, London: Routledge, pp. 106-109.
Burgess, R. G. (1981) ‘Keeping a research diary’, Cambridge Journal of Education,
Vol. 11, No 1, Lent Term, pp. 75-82.
Buyukkaragoz, et al. S. S. (1997) Genel Ogretim Metodlari, Konya: Oz Egitim.
Cambridge International Dictionary of English (1995), Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
CARE (1994) Coming to Terms With Research, School of Education, University of
East Anglia, Norwich.

References 308
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1989) ‘Action Research in Education’, in Hammersley, M.
(ed.). Controversies in Classroom Research, London: Open University Press.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1990) Becoming Critical: Education Knowledge and Action
Research, London: The Falmer Press.
Celikkaya, H. (1997) Egitime Giris, Istanbul: Istanbul.
Charles, C. M. (1995) Introduction to Educational Research, USA: Longman.
Chastain, K. (1972) ‘Behavioristic and Cognitive Approaches in Programmed
Instruction’, Teaching English as a Second Language, New Delhi: Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd, pp. 49-59.
Chein, I. et al. (1988) ‘The field of Action Research’, in Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R.
(eds.), The Action Research Reader, (3rd
edition), Victoria: Deakin University,
pp. 57-62.
Chomsky, N. (1986) ‘A review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour’, in Smolinski, F.
(ed.) Landmarks of American Language and Linguistics, Washington, D. C.:
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, US Information Agency, pp.117-
135.
Chomsky, N. (1986) ‘Linguistic theory’ in Smolinski, F. (ed.) Landmarks of American
Language and Linguistics, Washington, D. C.: Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs, US Information Agency, pp. 262-264.
Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1994) ‘Personal Experience Methods’ in Denzin, N.
K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, London, New
Delhi: Sage Publication, pp. 413-427.
Clark, C. (1997) ‘Using Action Research to Foster a Creative Response to Teaching
More Able Pupils’, High Ability Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 95-111.
Clark, J, Dudley, P. Edwards, A., Rowland, S. Ryan, C. & Winter, R. (1993) ‘ Ways of
Presenting and Critiquing Action Research Reports’, Educational Action
Research, Vol. 1, No.3, pp. 446-448.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1996) Research Methods in Education, (4th
edition), London:
Routledge.
Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1987), Birmingham: Birmingham Unv. Press.

References 309
Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1990) ‘Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry’,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 2-14.
Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1997) ‘Narrative Inquiry’, in Keeves, J. P. (ed.),
Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement: An International
Handbook, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 81-86.
Cook, V. & Newson, M. (1996) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, (2nd
edition),
Oxford: Blackwell.
Cook, V. (1993) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching, (2nd
edition),
London: Edward Arnold.
Corey, S. M. (1953) Action Research to Improve School Practice, New York:
Teachers’ College, Colombia University.
Corey, S. M. (1988) ‘Action Research, fundamental research and educational practice’,
in Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (eds.), The Action Research Reader, (3rd
edition), Victoria: Deakin University, pp. 63-65.
Covell, J. (1987) ‘ The Application of Action research to the In-service Education of
teachers in F.E./H.E’, NASD Journal, Vol. 17, pp.16-20.
Cresswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among
Five Traditions, Thousands Oak: Sage Publications.
Crookes, G. (1993) ‘Action Research for Second Language Teachers: Going Beyond
Teacher Research’, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 14. pp. 130-144.
Crystal, D. (1998b) The Penguin Dictionary of Language, (2nd
edition), UK: Penguin
Books Ltd.
Crystal, D. (1999) The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language, (4th
edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal. D. (1998a) The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language, Cambridge:
Cumming, A. & Gill, J. (1991) ‘Learning ESL Literacy Among Indo-Canadian Women’,
Language Culture and Curriculum, Vol. 4, No 3, pp. 181-200.

References 310
Daloglu, A. (1991) Influence of Knowing Another Foreign Language on Learning
English:.., Unpublished MA, Ankara: Bilken Universitesi.
Davenport, G. C. (1994) An Introduction to Child Development, (2nd
edition),
London: Collins Educational.
Day, C. (1996) ‘Professional Learning and School Development in Action: A
Professional Development Planning Project’, in McBride, R. (ed.) Teacher
Education Policy, London: The Falmer Press, London, pp. 192-217).
Day, R. R. (1984) ‘ Student Participation in the ESL Classroom or Some Impressions in
Practice’, Language Learning, Vol. 34, pp. 69-98.
Demircan, O. (1988) Turkiyede Yabanci Dil, Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
Demircan, O. (1990) Yabanci Dil Ogretim Yontemleri, Istanbul: Can Ofset.
Demirel, O (1996) Genel Ogretim Yontemleri, Ankara: UsemYayinlari.
Demirel, O. (1990) Yabaci Dil Ogretimi: Ilkeler, Yontemler, Teknikler, Ankara:
Usem Yayinlari - 6.
Denscombe, M. (1998) The Good Research Guide, Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1998) ‘The Art and Politics of Interpretation’ in Denzin, N. K. &
Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials,
London, New Delhi: Sage, pp. 313-344.
Desforges, C. (1995) An Introduction to Teaching, Oxford: Blackwell.
Dogan, N. (1996) Using Context in Vocabulary Teaching, Unpublished MA, Ankara:
Gazi Universitesi.
Ebbutt, D. & Elliott, J. (1985) ‘Why should teachers do research?’, in Ebbutt & Elliott
(eds.) Issues in Teaching for Understanding, York: Longman, pp. 7-19.
Ebbutt, D. (1985) ‘Educational Action Research: Some General Concern and Specific
Quibbles’ in Burgess, R. G.(ed.) Issues in Educational Research Qualitative
Method, London: The Falmer Press , pp.145-172.

References 311
Ebbutt, D. (1988) ‘Multi-site Case Study: some recent practice and the problem of
generalisation’, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 347-363.
Ekinci et al. Y. (1988) Hizmetici Egitim, Kurulus, Gelisme Faaliyetler, Ankara:
Hizmetici Egitim Dairesi Baskanligi.
Elliott (1984) ‘A Certificate in Educational Action Research’, Evaluation News
Letters, Vol. 8, Part 2, pp. 59-61.
Elliott, J. MacLure, M., Sarland, C., & Goodson, I. (1994 - 1996) ‘Teachers As
Researchers in the Context of Award Bearing Courses and Research Degrees’, A
Project supported by the Economic and Social Research Council, University of
East Anglia, Norwich.
Elliott, J. & Adelman, C. (1973) ‘Reflecting Where is the action: The design of the Ford
Teaching Project’ Education For Teaching, Autumn, pp. 8-19.
Elliott, J. (1976) ‘ Preparing Teachers for Classroom Accountability’, Journal of the
National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, No. 100,
pp.49-71.
Elliott, J. (1977) ‘Conceptualising Relationships between Research/Evaluation
Procedures and In-Service Teacher education’, British Journal of In-Service
Education, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.102-115.
Elliott, J. (1977) ‘Evaluating in-service activities from above and below’, Insight, pp. 9-
14.
Elliott, J. (1980) ‘Action Research in Schools: Some Guidelines’, in The Theory and
Practice, CARN Bulletin, No. 4, pp. 36-46.
Elliott, J. (1981) ‘The Cambridge Accountability Project’, Cambridge Journal of
Education, Vol. 11, No.2, pp. 146-165.
Elliott, J. (1985) ‘Facilitating Action-Research in Schools: Some Dilemmas’, in Burgess,
R. G. Field Methods in the Study of Education, London: The Falmer Press, pp.
235-262.
Elliott, J. (1988) ‘Educational research and outsider-insider relations’, Qualitative
Studies in Education, Vol.1, No.2, pp. 155-166.

References 312
Elliott, J. (1989) ‘Academics and Action Research: the training workshops as an exercise
in ideological deconstruction paper presented to the American Research
association, San Francisco, March 1989, pp.1-21.
Elliott, J. (1990) ‘Validating Case Studies’, Westminster Studies in Education, Vol.
13, pp. 47-60.
Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research For Educational Change, Milton Keynes,
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Elliott, J. (1995) ‘What is good action research? -some criteria’, Action Researcher,
Issue No.2, pp. 10-11.
Ellis, R. (1994) Understanding Second Language Acquisition, (9th
edition) Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1995) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, (3rd
edition), Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997) ‘The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials’, ELT
Journal, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 36-43.
Ellis, R. (1998) Second Language Acquisition, (2nd
edition), Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
English-Turkish, Turkish-English Dictionary (1995) [Langenscheidt], Istanbul: Anka
Ofset Basimevi.
Erturk, S. (1978) Egitimde Program Gelistirme, Ankara: Yelkentepe Yayinlari.
Farrell, T. S. C. (1999) ‘Reflective practice in an EFL teacher development group’,
System, No. 2, pp. 157-172.
Fathman, A. (1975) ‘The relationship between age and second language productive
ability’, Language Teaching, Vol. 25, pp. 245-253.
Fielding, N.(1996) ‘Qualitative Interviewing’, in Gilbert, N. (ed.), Researching Social
Life, London: Sage Publications, pp. 135-153.
Fortune, A. (1992) ‘Self-study grammar practice: learners’ views of preferences’, ELT
Journal, Vol. 46, No 2, pp. 160-171.

References 313
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1998) An Introduction to Language, (6th edition),
Philadelphia, San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (1992) Teacher Development and Educational Change,
London: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1995) The New Meaning of Educational Change, (2nd
edition),
London: Cassell.
Gardner, R. C. & MacIntryre, P. D. (1991) ‘An Instrumental Motivation in Language
Study’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 13, pp. 57-72.
Gardner, R. C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning, London:
Edward Arnold.
Genesee, F & Upsher, J. A. (1996) Classroom-Based Evaluation in Second Language
Education, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Georgiadou, M. (1992) ‘Action Research in Language Education’, Language Issues,
Vol. 5, No 2, pp. 4-6.
Gilbert, N. (1996) ‘Research, theory and method’, in Gilbert, N. (ed.), Researching
Social Life, London: Sage Publications, pp. 18-31.
Gore, J. M. & Zeichner, K. M. (1991) ‘Action Research and Reflective Teaching in
Preservice Teacher Education: A Case Study from the United Studies’, Teaching
and Teacher Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 119-136.
Gore, J. M. (1987) ‘Reflecting on Reflecting Teaching’ Journal of Teacher Education,
Vol. 38, No.2, pp. 33-39.
Green, J. L. & Wallat, C. (1983) Ethnography and Language in Educational Setting,
Norwood, New Jersey : Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Green, S. (1996) ‘The professional development of modern language teachers’,
Language Learning Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 75-79.
Grundy, S. & Kemmis, S. (1988) ‘Educational Action Research in Australia: the state of
the art (an overview)’, in Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (eds.), The Action
Research Reader, (3rd
edition), Victoria: Deakin University, pp. 321-335.

References 314
Gunz, J. (1996) ‘Jacob L. Moreno and the Origins of Action Research’, Educational
Action Research, Vol. 4, No.1, pp. 145-158.
Halsey, A. H. (1972) Educational Priority, London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office,
Vol. 1.
Hamel, J., Defour, S. & Fortin, D. (1993) Case Study Methods, London: Sage
Publications.
Hammersley, M. (1993) ‘On the Teacher as Researcher’ Educational Action Research,
Vol. 1, No.3, pp. 425-445.
Harmer, J. (1995) The Practice of English Language Teaching, (8th edition), London:
Longman.
Harrington, H. L. (1994) ‘Perspective on cases’, Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol.
7, No.2, pp. 117-133.
Henrichsen, L. E. (1984) ‘Sandhi-variation: A filter of input for learners of ESL’,
Language Teaching, Vol. 34, pp.103-121.
Hesapcioglu, M. (1994) Ogretim Ilke ve Yontemleri, Istanbul: Beta.
Hill, W. C. (1980) Learning: a survey of psychological interpretations, Great Britain:
The Chaucer Press Ltd.
Hitchcox, G. & Hughes, D. (1995) Research and the Teacher, (2nd
edition), London,
USA: Routledge.
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1988) ‘Action Research- a critique’, in Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R.
(eds.), The Action Research Reader, (3rd
edition), Victoria: Deakin University,
pp 75-79.
Holderness, J. (1991) ‘Activity-based teaching: approaches to topic-centred work’, in
Brumfit, et al. (eds.) Teaching English to Children, From Practice to
Principle, London: Collins ELT, pp. 18-32.
Hollingsworth, S. (1997) ‘Teachers as Researchers’ in Keeves, J. P., Educational
Research Methodology and Measurement: An International Handbook, (2nd
edition), Pergamon, pp. 247-250.

References 315
Hollingsworth, S., Noffke, S. E., Walker, M. & Winter, R. (1997) ‘Epilogue: What Have
We Learnt From These Cases on Action Research and Educational Reform’, in
Holingsworth, S. et al. (eds.), International Action Research for Educational
Reform, London: The Falmer Press, pp. 312-317.
Hopkins, C. D. (1980) Understanding Educational Research: An Inquiry Approach,
Columbus: Bell & Howell Company.
Hopkins. D. (1996) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research, (2nd
edition),
Buckingham, Open University Press.
Hornby, A.S. (1972) ‘The Structural Approaches to Language Teaching’, Teaching
English as a Second Language, New Delhi, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company Ltd, pp. 83-88.
Hornsby-Smith, M. (1996) ‘Gaining access’ in Gilbert, N. (ed.), Researching Social
Life, London: Sage Publications, pp. 52-67.
Howe, R. K. (1995) ‘Democracy, Justice and Action Research: some theoretical
developments’, Educational Action Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 347-349.
Hustler, et al. C. (1986) Action Research in Classrooms and Schools, London, Sidney:
Allen and Unwin Publications.
Hutchinson, B. & Whitehouse, P. (1986) ‘Action Research, Professional Competence
and School Organisation’ British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 12,
No.1, pp. 85-94.
Ireland, D. & Russell, T. (1978) ‘Pattern Analysis’, CARN Bulletin, No 2, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-24.
Irshad, K. & Imrie, J. (1997) ‘Improving Attainment Through Action Research: an
introduction to Hillingdon’s Raising Achievement Project’, Multicultural
Teaching to Combat Racism in School and Community, Vol. 15, No 2, pp.
15-17.
Janesick, V. J. (1994) ‘The Dance of Qualitative Research Design; Metaphor,
Methodolatry, and Meaning’, Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Handbooks
of Qualitative Research, USA: Sage, pp. 209-219.
Johnstone, R. (1990) ‘Action-research in the Foreign Language Classroom’, Language
Learning Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 22-25.

References 316
Kara, K. (1998) T.C. Inkilap Tarihi ve Ataturkculuk, Istanbul: Serhat.
Karaaslan, Y. (1996) Enhancing Vocabulary Learning Through Learning Strategies
with Special Emphasis on Contextual Guesswork, Unpublished MA, Ankara:
Gazi Universitesi.
Kebir, C. (1994) ‘An Action Research Look at the Communication Strategies of Adult
Learners’, TESOL, Vol. 4, No.1, (Special Issue), pp.28-31.
Keeves, J. P. and McKenzie, P. A. (1997) ‘Research in education: Nature, Needs and
Priorities’, in J. P. Keeves (ed.) Educational Research, Methodology and
Measurement: An International Handbook, (2nd
edition), Cambridge:
Kelly, A. (1985) ‘Action Research: What it is and what can it do’ in Burgess, R. G
Issues in Educational Research: Qualitative Method, London, Philadelphia:
The Falmer Press pp. 129-151.
Kember, D. (2000) Action Learning and Action Research, London: Kogan Page.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988) The Action Research Planner, (3rd
edition)
Victoria: Deakin University Press, Australia.
Kemmis, S. (1980) ‘The imagination of the Case and the invention of the study’, in
Simons, H. (ed.), Towards a Science of the Singular, CARE, Occasional
Publication, No 10. UEA, Norwich.
Kemmis, S. (1985) ‘Action Research’ The International Encyclopaedia of Education:
Research and Studies, Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press, Vol. 1, pp.35-42.
Kemmis, S. (1988) ‘Action Research in retrospect and prospect’, in Kemmis, S. &
McTaggart, R. (eds.), The Action Research Reader, (3rd
edition), Victoria:
Deakin University, pp. 27-39.
Kemmis, S. (1997) ‘Action Research’ Educational Research Methodology and
Measurement: An International Handbook, (2nd
edition), Keeves, J. P.,
Pergamon, pp. 247-250.
Kiratli, M. (1988) Modern Turkiye’nin Dogusu, (translation of ‘The Emergence of
Modern Turkey’ by Lewis), Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu.

References 317
Kiziltan, N. (1990) Vocabulary Teaching in the Communicative Approach,
Unpublished MA, Ankara: Hacettepe Universitesi.
Klein, W. (1990) Second Language Acquisition, (2nd
edition) Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Koc et al. (1996) Yonetici ve Ogretmenler Icin Kanun El Kitabi, Ankara: Milli
Egitim Basimevi.
Kurt, M. (1992) Teaching Vocabulary, Unpublished MA, Ankara: Gazi Universitesi.
Kyriacou, C. (1997) Effective Teaching in Schools, Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes Ltd.
Laidlaw, M. (1994) ‘The Democratising Potential of Dialogical Focus in an Action
Enquiry’, Educational Action Research, Vol. 2, No 2, pp. 223-241.
Langley, P. (1991) Doing Social Research, Lancashire: Causeway Books.
Lawton, D. (1982) ‘The politics of curriculum evaluation’, in McCormick et al, R.
(eds.), Calling Education into Account, London: Heinemann, pp. 169-183.
Levin, B. B. (1995) ‘Using the Case Study Method in Teacher education: The Role of
Discussion and Experience in Teachers’ Thinking About Cases’, Teaching and
Teacher Education, , Vol. 11, No, 1, pp. 63-79.
Levine, J. (1986) ‘ A Teachers Research Group’, Forum, Vol. 29, No 1, pp. 16-17.
Lewin, K. (1948) ‘Action Research and Minority Problems’ in Lewin, G. W (ed.)
Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, New York,
London: Harper &Row Publishers, pp. 201-216.
Lewis, M. & Hill, J. (1985) Practical Techniques for Language Teaching, England:
Language Teaching Publications.
Lomax, P. (1991) Managing Better Schools and Colleges: The Action Research
Way, Clevedon, Philadelphia: Bera Dialogues 5, Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Lomax, P. (1994) ‘Standards, Criteria and the Problematic of Action Research within an
Award Bearing Course’, Educational Action Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 113-
125.

References 318
Lukmani, Y. M. (1973) ‘Motivation to learn and language proficiency’, Language
Teaching, Vol. 22, pp. 261-272.
Lynton, et al. (1988) ‘Action Research: notes on the national seminar’, in Kemmis, S. &
edition), Victoria:
MacDonald, B. (1977) ‘A Political classification of evaluation studies’, in Hamilton, D.
et al (eds.), Beyond the Numbers Game, Macmillan Education, pp. 224-227.
MacDonald, B. & Walker, R. (1975) ‘Case Study and the Social Philosophy of
Educational research’, Cambridge Jornal of Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 2-11.
MacLure, M. (1989) ‘Anyone for Inset’ Needs Identification and Personal
Development’, in McBride, R. (ed.), The In-service Training of Teachers,
London: The Falmer Press, pp. 187-192.
Maher, J. & Groves, J. (1998) Introducing Chomsky, UK: Icon Books.
Manning, P. K. & Cullum-Swan (1998) ‘Narrative, Context and Semiotic Analysis’ in
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative
Materials, London, N. Delhi: Sage.
Marchel, C. A. & Gaddis, R. (1998) ‘Action Research on Action Research’, New Era
Education, Vol. 79, Part 2, pp. 34-38.
Margerison, C. J. (1994) ‘Action learning and excellence in management development’
in Mabey, C & Iles, P., Managing Learning (eds.), London, Bonn: Open
University Press.
Marriam, B. (1988) Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach, San
Francisco, London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Maslow, A. (1993) DNA and Free Radicals, New York: Ellis Horward.
McBride, R. (1989) ‘Advisers and In-service Training Recent Developments’, in
McBride, R. (ed.), The In-service Training of Teachers, London: The Falmer
Press, pp. 39-47.
McBride, R. (1995) ‘Action Research’, An Introduction to Qualitative Research: A
Handbook for Teachers, Translated by V. Buresova, Liberec, Czech Republic,
University of Liberec Press, pp. 24-43.

References 319
McBride, R. (1995) ‘Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research’, An Introduction to
Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Teachers, Translated by V. Buresova,
Liberec, Czech Republic, University of Liberec Press, pp. 7-15.
McBride, R. (1999) ‘Working with the Egyptian Government to Improve Egyptian
Schools’, Paper presented at ‘the Oxford International Conference on
Educational Development 1999. Poverty, Power and Partnership. pp. 1-13.
McCarthy, M and O’Dell, F (199) English Vocabulary in Use, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCotcheon, G. (1981) ‘The impact of insider’, in A Teacher’s Guide to Action
Research, in Nixon, J. (ed.), London: Grant and McIntyre, pp. 186- 193.
McKernan, J. (1991) Curriculum Action Research: A Handbook of Methods and
Resources For the Reflective Practitioners, London: Kogan Page.
McKernan, J. (1994) ‘Teaching Educational Action Research: a tale of three cities’,
Educational Action Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 95-111.
McLean, J. E. (1995) Improving Education Through Action Research, Corwin,
California: Sage:
McNeil, D. (1970) The Acquisition of Language: The Study of Developmental
Psycholinguistics, New York: Harper and Row Publisher.
McNiff, J. (1993) Teaching As Learning, An Action Research Approach, London:
Routledge.
Mcniff, J. (1995) Action Research:Principles and Practice, London: Routledge.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research
Project, London: Routledge.
Meyer, B. B. & Etheridge, C. P. (1999) ‘Improving Student Interest in the Spanish 1
Classroom through Democratic Teaching’, Educational Action Research, Vol.
7, No. 3, pp. 327-346.
Midwinter, E. (1972) Priority Education: An Account of the Liverpool Project,
London: Cow & Wyman.

References 320
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984) ‘Drawing Valid Meaning from Qualitative
Data: Toward a Shared Craft’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 13, pp.20-30.
Miles, M. B & Huberman, A. M. (1994b) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Book, (2nd
edition), Thousand Oak, CA: California.
Milliyet Newspaper, 18/2/2000.
Milliyet Newspaper, 29/7/1998.
Mitchel, R. & Myles, F. (1998) Second Language Learning Theories, London:
Arnold.
Mogol, F. (1990) Teaching Vocabulary Through Song, Unpublished MA, Eskisehir:
Anadolu Universitesi.
Mok, A. (1997) ‘Student Empowerment in an English Language Enrichment
Programme: an action research project in Hong Kong’, Educational Action
Research, Vol. 5, No 2, pp. 305-320.
Mumcu et al. A.(1986) Atatuk Ilkeleri ve Inkilap Tarihi, Ankara: Yuksek Ogretim
Matbasi.
Newmark, G. & Diller, E. (1972) ‘Emphasizing the audio in the ‘Audio Lingual
Approach’, Teaching English as a Second Language, New Delhi, Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd, pp. 98-101.
Nisbet, J. & Watt, J. (1984) ‘ Case Study’ in Bell, J. et al. (eds.) Conducting Small-
Scale Investigations in Educational Management, London: P. C. P., pp. 72-92.
Noffke, S. E. & Stevenson, R. B. (1995) ‘Action Research and Supporting School
Contexts, Exploring Possibilities for Transformations’, Educational Action
Research, Becoming Practically Critical, London, New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University, pp. 197-209.
Nunan, D. (1989) Understanding Language Classrooms, A Guide for Teacher-
Initiated Action, N. York, London: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D. (1994) Research Methods in Language Learning, (3rd
edition), Cambridge,

References 321
Nunan, D. (1996) ‘Learner Strategy Training in the Classroom: An Action Research
Study’, TESOL Journal, Vol.6, No.1. pp. 35-41.
O’Brein, et al. T. (2000) ‘Collaborative Practice-based Research in Supporting the
Language Development of Primary Level Bilingual Children: a case study’,
Educational Action Research, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 43-66.
O’Hanlon, C. (1992) ‘Action Research in the Professional Development of Teachers’,
European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.204-218.
Oja, S. N. Smulyan, L. (1989) Collaborative Action Research: A Developmental
Approach, The Falmer Press, London, New York.
Onder, N. K. (1986) Ogretimde Program, Ilke ve Yontemler, Konya: Egitim
Fakultesi.
Onel, Z. I. (1998) The Effects of Action Research as a Teacher Development Model
on Becoming Reflecting in Teaching: A Case Study, Unpublished Ph.D.
Ankara: ODTU.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1995)Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ozcelik D. A. (1992) Olcme ve Degerlendirme, Ankara: Gaye Matbacilik.
Parlett, M. (1982) ‘The New Evaluation’ in McCormick R. et al (eds.), Calling
Education to Account, London:Heinemann Educational Books, The Open
University Press, pp. 185-191.
Patton, M. Q. (1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, London: Sage
Publication.
Philpott, P. (1993) ‘Seating Patterns in Small Language Classes: an example of action
research’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 19, No 2, pp. 191-210.
Powell, L. & Gray, H. L. (1981) ‘Handling the Case Study’, British Journal of In-
service Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 198-202.
Pritchard, R. M. O. (1995) ‘Amae and the Japanese learner of English: an AR project’,
Language Culture and Curriculum, Vol. 8, No 3, pp. 249-264.
Proterough, et al. R. (1989) The Effective Teaching of English, London: Longman.

References 322
Pryor, J. (1998) ‘Action Research in West African Schools: roblems and Prospects’,
International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 219-
228.
Punch, K. F. (1998) Introduction to Social Research, London: Sage.
Radford (1992) Transformational Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radikal Newspaper, 1/8/2000.
Ragin, C. C. (1992) ‘ “Casing” and the process of social inquiry’, in Ragin, C. C. (ed.),
What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of Social Inquiry, Cambridge:
Ragin, C. C. (1992) ‘Introduction: Cases of “What is a case”’, in Ragin, C. C. (ed.),
What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of Social Inquiry, Cambridge:
Rainey, I. (2000) ‘Action Research and the English as a Foreign Language Practitioner:
time to take stock’, Educational Action Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 65-91.
Rapoport, R. N. (1970) ‘Three Dilemmas in Action Research’, Human Relations, No
23, Vol. 6, pp. 499-513.
Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. (1996), Reflective Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms, (6th
edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (1993) Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1978) Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning:
Issues and Approaches, Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Riessman, C. K. (1993) Narrative Analysis, London: Sage Publications.
Rivers, M. W. (1981) Teaching Foreign Language Skills, (2nd
edition), Chicago &
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Rixon, S. (1991) ‘The role of fun and games activities in teaching young learners’, in
Brumfit, et al. (eds.) Teaching English to Children, From Practice to
Principle, London: Collins ELT, pp. 33-48.

References 323
Robson, C. (1995) Real World Research, Oxford: Blackwell.
Rudduck, J. (1985) ‘A Case for case records?: A discussion of some aspects of
Lawrence Stenhouse’s work on case study methodology’, in Burgess, R. G.
Strategies of Educational Research: Qualitative Methods, London: The
Falmer Press, pp. 101-119.
Sabah Newspaper, 13/72000.
Sabah Newspaper, 7/6/1999.
Sahinel, S. (1988) Systematic Vocabulary Teaching to the Learners of English as a
Foreign Language: A Case Study, Unpublished MA, Eskisehir: Anadolu
Universitesi.
Saint-Germain, M. (1995) ‘How to bring learners to write cases’, Simulation and
Gaming Yearbook, Vol. 3, pp. 172-181.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sanford, N. (1988) ‘Whatever happened to Action Research’, in Kemmis, S. &
edition), Victoria:
Sanger, J. (1990) ‘Awakening a Scream of Consciousness: The Critical Group in Acton
Research’ Theory in Practice, Vol. 29, No.3, pp.174-178.
Sanger, J. 1986) Six Day of Action Research Workshop in the Valencia Area, CARE,
Norwich.
Sarantakos, S. (1998) Social Research, (2nd
edition), London: Macmillan.
Sargeant, J. (1993) ‘Gender and Power: The Meta-Ethics of Teaching Argument in
Schools’, Curriculum, Vol. 14, No 1, pp. 6-13.
Saturman, A. (1997) ‘Case Study Methods’, in Keeves, J. P. (ed.), Educational
Research, Methodology, and Measurement: An International Handbook,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61-66.
Schon, D. A. (1983) The reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action,
USA: Basic Books.

References 324
Schon, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, London: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Schostak, J. F. (1985) ‘Creating the Narrative Case Records’, Curriculum
Perspectives, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 7-13.
Schostak, J. F. (1991) Youth in Trouble, Norwich: Kogan Page, CARE, School of
Education, University of East Anglia.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997) Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms, London: Sage
Publications.
Seedhouse, P. (1995) ‘Needs Analysis and the General English Classroom’, ELT
Journal, Vol. 49, No 1, pp. 59-65.
Shumsky, A. (1988) ‘Cooperation in Action Research: A Rationale’, in Kemmis, S. &
edition), Victoria:
Simon, H. (1987) Getting to Know Schools in a Democracy: The Politics and
Process of Evaluation, London: The Falmer Press.
Simon, H. (1996) ‘The paradox of case study’, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol.
26, No. 2, pp. 225-240.
Smith, J. A. (1996) ‘Evolving Issues for Qualitative Psychology’ in Richardson, T. E.
Handbook of Qualitative Research: Methods for Psychology and Social
Sciences, Leicester: BPS, pp. 189-201.
Smith, P. K, & Cowie, H. (1995) Understanding Children’s Development, (2nd
edition), Oxford: Blackwell.
Somekh, B. (1989) ‘Action Research and Collaborative School Development’, in
McBride, R. (ed.), The In-service Training of Teachers, London, New York:
The Falmer Press, pp. 160-176.
Srauss, A, & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research, Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (1978) ‘The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry’, Educational
Researcher, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 5-8.

References 325
Stake, R. E. (1985) ‘Case Study’ in Nisbet, J. et al. (eds.), World Yearbook of
Education, London: Kogan Page, pp. 277-285.
Stake, R. E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, London: Sage Publications.
Stenhouse, L (1982) ‘The Conduct, Analysis and Reporting of Case Study in
Educational research and Evaluation’, in McCormick, R. (ed.) Calling
Education into Account, London: Open University Press, pp. 261-273.
Stenhouse, L. (1978) ‘Case Study and Case Records: towards a contemporary of
education’, British Journal of Education, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 21-39.
Stenhouse, L. (1979) ‘Case Study in Comparative Education: particularity and
generalisation’, Comparative Education, Vol. 15., No. 1, pp.5-10.
Stenhouse, L. (1980) ‘The Study of Samples and the Study of Cases’, British
Educational Research Journal, Vol.6, No.1, pp. 1-6.
Stenhouse, L. (1980) Curriculum Research and Development in Action, London:
Heinemann, Educational Books.
Stenhouse, L. (1982) ‘Case Study Methods, CARE, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
Stenhouse, L. (1985) ‘A note on Case Study and Educational Practice’ in Burgess, R. G.
(ed.) Field Methods in the Study of Education, London: The Falmer Press, pp.
263-272.
Stenhouse, L. (1985) ‘Case Study Methods’, in Husen, T. et al. (ed.) The International
Encyclopaedia of Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 645-650.
Stenhouse, L. (1985) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development,
London: Heinemann.
Stenhouse, L. (1985) Research As A Basis For Teaching, Readings From the Work of
Lawrence Stenhouse (eds.) J. Rudduck, D. Hopkins, London: Heinemann.
Stern, H. H. (1984) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching, (2nd
edition),
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research, Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques, London, N. Delhi: Sage Publications.

References 326
Strevens, P. (1977) New Orientations in the Teaching of English, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stringer, E. T. (1996) Action Research, A Handbook for Practitioners, London, New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
Stuart, J, & Kunje, D. (1998), ‘Action Research in Developing African Education
Systems: is the glass half full or half empty’, Educational Action Research,
Vol. 6, No, 3, pp. 377-395.
Stuart, J. S. (1987) Developing Development Studies Through Action Research: A Study
of Collaborative and Reflective Classroom Practice in LESOTHO, University of
Sussex, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.
Sumara, D. & Luce-Kapler, R. (1993) ‘Action Research as a Writerly Text: locating co-
labouring in collaboration’, Educational Action Research, Vol. 1. No 3, pp.
387-395.
T.C. Milli Egitim Bakanligi (1994) Tebligler Dergisi, No: 2417.
T.C. Milli Egitim Bakanligi (1995) Hizmetici Egitim Yonetmeligi, Yayimlar Dairesi
Baskanligi, Ankara.
T.C. Milli Egitim Bakanligi (1997), Tebligler Dergisi, No: 2481.
T.C. Milli Egitim Bakanligi, (1999) Sayisal Veriler Milli Egitim, Ankara: Yayimlar
Dairesi Baskanligi.
Talba, H. & Noel, E. (1988) ‘Steps in Action Research Process’, in Kemmis, S. &
edition), Victoria:
Taymaz, H. (1997) Hizmetici Egitim, Kavramlar, Ilkeler, Yontemler, Ankara: Takav.
Tekin, H. (1996) Egitimde Olme ve Degerlendirme, Ankara: Yargi Yayinlari.
The National Literacy Strategy (1998) Department for Education and Employment,
Suffolk: NLTF.
Thorne, C & Qiang, W. (1996) ‘Action Research in language teacher education’, ELT
Journal, Vol. 50, No 3, pp. 255-262.

References 327
Tickle, L. (1995) ‘Testing for Quality in educational Action Research: a terrifying
taxonomy?’, Educational Action Research, Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 233-237.
Tokmakcioglu, Z. (1990) Improving Active Vocabulary Teaching and Developing
Speaking Through Drama in ELT Classes, Unpublished MA, Ankara: ODTU.
Tomakin, E. (1996) Action Research: A Feasibility Study at Secondary and High
Schools in Turkey, Unpublished MA, Colchester: Essex University.
Tum, G. (1992) A Study on Vocabulary Improvement Through Extensive Reading,
Unpublished MA Dissertation, Adana: Cukurova Universitesi.
Turgut, I. (1991) Egitim Uzerine (Felsefi bir Deneme), Izmir: Bilgehan Matbaasi.
Varis, F. (1978) Egitim Bilimine Giris, Ankara: A. U. Fen Bilimleri Fakultesi, No: 78.
Velidedeoglu, H. V. (1989) Nutuk, (16th
Volume), Istanbul: Cagdas Yayinlari.
Walker, R. (1989) ‘The Conduct of Educational Case Studies: Ethics, Theory and
Procedures’, in Hammersly, M., Controversies in Classroom Research, pp.
163-195.
Walker, R. (1990) Doing Research: A Handbook For Teachers, London: Routledge.
Wallace, M. (1987) ‘A Historical Review of Action Research: some implications for the
education of teachers in their managerial role’ Journal of Education for
Teaching, Vol. 13, No.2, pp. 97-115.
Wallace, M. (1987) Teaching Vocabulary, London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Wallace, M. J. (1998) Action Research for Language Teachers, Cambridge:
Wallat, et al. C. (1983) Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings,
Norwood, N. Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Walton, J. (1992) ‘Making the theoretical case’ in Ragin, C. C. (ed.), What is a case?:
Exploring the foundations of Social Inquiry, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 121-137.

References 328
Watt, M. L. & Watt, D. L. (1993) ‘Teachers Research, Action Research: the Logo
Action Research Collaborative’, Educational Action Research, Vol.1, No.1, pp.
35-63.
Weinstein, K. (1994..) Action Learning, A Journey in Discovery and Development,
London: Harper Collins.
Whitehead, J. (1989) ‘Creating a Living Educational Theory from Questions of the
Kind, ‘How do I improve my Practice?, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol.
19, No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Whyte, W. F. (1991) ‘Comparing Participatory Action Research and Action Science’,
Participatory Action Research, London, New Delhi: Sage, pp. 97-98.
Wilkins, D. A. (1990) ‘Grammatical, Situational and Notional Syllabus”, in Brumfit, C.
J. & Johnson, K. (eds.) The Communicative Approaches to Language
Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 82-90.
Winter, R. (1989) Learning Form Experience: principles and practice in action
research, London: The Falmer Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990) Writing Up Qualitative Research, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wragg, E. C. (1994) An Introduction to Classroom Research, London: Routledge.
Yeni Safak Newspaper, 27/8/200.
Yilmaz, H. (1996) Egitimde Olcme ve Degerlendirme, Konya:Oz Egitim.
Yin, R. K. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (1993) Application of Case Study Research, London: Sage.
Yule, G. (1993) The Study of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zaman Newspaper, 26/5/1999.
Zaman Newspaper, 9/11/1998.

References 329
Zeller, R. A. (1997) ‘Validity’ in Kevees, J. P. (ed.) Educational Research,
Methodology, and Measurement: An International Handbook, (2nd
edition),
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992a) Professional Development in Higher Education, A
Theoretical Framework For Action Research, London: Kogan.
Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1992b) Action Research in Higher Education: Examples and
Reflections, London: Kogan Page.

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN

More Related Content

Similar to AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN (20)

More from Sarah Pollard (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN